Date   

Re: Knowledge mapping #mapping

swieneke@...
 

Matt,

We use knowledge "mapping" (we call knowledge modeling) to assist a subject matter responsible person in graphically defining their area of practice. This modeling technique surfaces the relationships between topics and the composition of each topic. The modeling exercise allows the subject matter responsible person to again becomes aware of what they know and improves their ability to comprehensively express and share their knowledge. For examples follow this link http://elkawareness.com/diagrams.htm

Regards,

Steven Wieneke
Wieneke & Wieneke, Inc.
www.elkawareness.com


Quoting Matt Moore <innotecture@...>:

Hello,
I'm doing some work on knowledge mapping at the moment. I am aware of the APQC's publications on this topic. However I'm interested in getting a sense of the techniques that people are using currently.
What I would like to do is get some qualitative feedback from people on the lists then I may set up a short survey about usage & attitudes and publish the results back to the groups. If someone has done this already then I will simply copy what they have done and not reinvent the wheel, etc, etc.
First of all, how do people out there define a knowledge map? For me, it's any graphical representation of knowledge in an organisation. And because knowledge is complex, mulit-facted thing, this means that knowledge maps can take many forms. Knowledge maps are all about understanding what you have, they are often developed collectively to generate a shared understanding of knowledge, they can be used to communicate issues to other stakeholders.
HOW DO YOU DEFINE A KNOWLEDGE MAP? WHAT IS IT FOR? WHAT SHOULD BE IN ONE?
The most common forms that I have seen are:
- Business process mapping
- Contentaudits/inventories - that list either individual content items or groups of content items along with notes around purpose, audience, ownership, etc.
- Skills inventories - that break out different skills by individual or even group.
- Social network analysis - that displays the relationships
- Concept maps & topic maps that display relationships between concepts or entities (and here we start moving into ontologies)
They don't have to be these - a memorable example of a knowledge map was produced by a market research company for new starters as a game of snakes & ladders.
WHAT OTHER MAPS HAVE YOU COME ACROSS THAT YOU'D CALL A KNOWLEDGE MAP?
Any contributions much appreciated.
Matt


May 2013 SIKM Call: Frank Leistner and Gordon Vala-Webb - Taking Knowledge Flow Management to the Next Level with Social Media #monthly-call #social-media

Stan Garfield
 
Edited

TO: SIKM Leaders Community

Last Tuesday we held our 96th monthly call.

Thanks to Frank and Gordon for presenting, Martin Cleaver and Andrew Gent for recording, Bruno Winck and Mary Abraham for live tweeting, and those who participated in the discussion. You can continue the discussion by replying to this thread.


Re: Knowledge mapping #mapping

Neil Olonoff
 

Matt: 

Perhaps 6-8 years ago I did some extensive research in knowledge mapping and came up with the conclusions you are finding: although the phrase is intriguing, we in the KM community have not yet developed any consensus about what "knowledge mapping" really means. Is it ...
- content mapping
- people / expertise mapping

I do think there have been some interesting efforts along this line and the ones mentioned are among them. I'll see if I can find my original notes on the topic and if so forward along. 
Best regards, 

Neil 



Neil Olonoff 
Mobile: 703.2834157
Office:  703.440.1298
Skype: nolonoff



On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Matt Moore <innotecture@...> wrote:
 

Hello,
 
I'm doing some work on knowledge mapping at the moment. I am aware of the APQC's publications on this topic. However I'm interested in getting a sense of the techniques that people are using currently.
 
What I would like to do is get some qualitative feedback from people on the lists then I may set up a short survey about usage & attitudes and publish the results back to the groups. If someone has done this already then I will simply copy what they have done and not reinvent the wheel, etc, etc.
 
First of all, how do people out there define a knowledge map? For me, it's any graphical representation of knowledge in an organisation. And because knowledge is complex, mulit-facted thing, this means that knowledge maps can take many forms. Knowledge maps are all about understanding what you have, they are often developed collectively to generate a shared understanding of knowledge, they can be used to communicate issues to other stakeholders.
 
HOW DO YOU DEFINE A KNOWLEDGE MAP? WHAT IS IT FOR? WHAT SHOULD BE IN ONE?
 
The most common forms that I have seen are:
- Business process mapping
- Content audits/inventories - that list either individual content items or groups of content items along with notes around purpose, audience, ownership, etc.
- Skills inventories - that break out different skills by individual or even group.
- Social network analysis - that displays the relationships
- Concept maps & topic maps that display relationships between concepts or entities (and here we start moving into ontologies)
They don't have to be these - a memorable example of a knowledge map was produced by a market research company for new starters as a game of snakes & ladders.
 
WHAT OTHER MAPS HAVE YOU COME ACROSS THAT YOU'D CALL A KNOWLEDGE MAP?
 
Any contributions much appreciated.
 
Matt



Re: Knowledge mapping #mapping

 


Re: Do we still need the role of info broker/infomediary/knowledge broker? #roles

Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Tom,
"It is against this backdrop of informal, unofficial activity that I am pondering the merit of having formally designated positions, or roles, to fulfill this activity."Let me put it this way. I do a fair bit of knowledge broking* & frankly I would love to be shot of it. Have everyone answering each other's questions rather than bothering me? Awesome! There's a heap of more interesting stuff I would love to do.

But in the short term, that part of my job is (sadly) safe. ESNs are still embryonic in most organisations. Search, in many places, still sucks.

And part of it is a time thing. I sit in 90% of the meetings in the domain I cover. I read all the thought leadership in that domain. I even make certain people read certain things. As far as the organisation is concerned, it's my job to across all this stuff so other people don't have to be to the same extent.

All that above noted, as I mentioned in an earlier email, I do think the role of the knowledge broker is changing and in some respects it's less of the traditional matchmaker ("You are looking for X? Talk to Y?") and more like OKCupid.

Cheer,

Matt

*Not "knowledge borking" as autocorrect seems to think.


Knowledge mapping #mapping

Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Hello,
 
I'm doing some work on knowledge mapping at the moment. I am aware of the APQC's publications on this topic. However I'm interested in getting a sense of the techniques that people are using currently.
 
What I would like to do is get some qualitative feedback from people on the lists then I may set up a short survey about usage & attitudes and publish the results back to the groups. If someone has done this already then I will simply copy what they have done and not reinvent the wheel, etc, etc.
 
First of all, how do people out there define a knowledge map? For me, it's any graphical representation of knowledge in an organisation. And because knowledge is complex, mulit-facted thing, this means that knowledge maps can take many forms. Knowledge maps are all about understanding what you have, they are often developed collectively to generate a shared understanding of knowledge, they can be used to communicate issues to other stakeholders.
 
HOW DO YOU DEFINE A KNOWLEDGE MAP? WHAT IS IT FOR? WHAT SHOULD BE IN ONE?
 
The most common forms that I have seen are:
- Business process mapping
- Content audits/inventories - that list either individual content items or groups of content items along with notes around purpose, audience, ownership, etc.
- Skills inventories - that break out different skills by individual or even group.
- Social network analysis - that displays the relationships
- Concept maps & topic maps that display relationships between concepts or entities (and here we start moving into ontologies)
They don't have to be these - a memorable example of a knowledge map was produced by a market research company for new starters as a game of snakes & ladders.
 
WHAT OTHER MAPS HAVE YOU COME ACROSS THAT YOU'D CALL A KNOWLEDGE MAP?
 
Any contributions much appreciated.
 
Matt


Re: Do we still need the role of info broker/infomediary/knowledge broker? #roles

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Tom,

It's interesting. There is a current focus within the Australian Government on increasing the amount of open public sector information. As part of this there are a number of references to appointing information champions and knowledge officers.

My interpretation of these roles is that they will be facilitating the *platforms* that expose information in a shareable and usable form. These in turn can facilitate the kind of ad hoc information brokering you are referring to.

I think that information brokers remain relevant in specialist contexts. Where there is non-trivial work or expertise required to identify relevant sources of information or knowledge, the value-add is there. For more generic gatekeeper roles though .. not so much.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 23/05/2013 9:22 AM, Tom Short wrote:
Thanks, all, for your responses. Yes, I agree this role is still
relevant. Or perhaps more precisely, this /activity /is still relevant.
The reason for my query is that it seems like social platforms and
higher participation on them is enabling a much wider (if not shallower)
base of info brokers, who casually act in that capacity as/when they
feel like doing it.

Sometimes they see a question they know the answer to, so they post up a
response. Other times they stumble on something they think others might
find useful, so they deposit it in a group where others with an interest
in the topic will see it; or they forward it to a few other people who
they believe will be interested.

So in this way info brokering takes place, but in a more distributed,
less 'official' fashion. It is against this backdrop of informal,
unofficial activity that I am pondering the merit of having formally
designated positions, or roles, to fulfill this activity.


Re: Do we still need the role of info broker/infomediary/knowledge broker? #roles

plessons@...
 

Hi Tom,

 

I am on the side of those that it is not just an activity, but also is a role that enables the evolution of different cognitive patterns required in terms of working across socio-technical networks. I am not convinced that organisations fully understand them selves as socio-technical in nature. I observe perceptions that organisations are social in nature and technical in nature but not necessarily socio-technical in nature. Boundary crossing is still very problematic in terms of how technology is re-shaping our cognitive patterns.


My context may be different in that I have been influenced by working in spaces cross that cross the boundaries between public, private and citizen centric service models.

 

The question I find myelf asking is that are there differences in conceptions associated with knowledge brokering activities when the context of public versus private enterprises are taken into account?

Two reflective resources that discuss knowledge brokering - one related  "child welfare" and the other to do with science based research networks with a focus on R, and D activities. Not sure if they would help …..

 

Bridging the ‘Know–Do’ Gap: Knowledge brokering to improve child wellbeing

http://epress.anu.edu.au/titles/knowledge_citation

 

Textual representations and knowledge support-systems in research intensive networks (in) Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Magee, L. (eds). Towards a Semantic Web: Connecting Knowledge in Academic Research. Oxford: Chandos Press, pp. 145-195. There is a bit of conceiving knowledge brokering in the future when metadat standards based workflows really arrive ...  later in the chapter.



Richard


----- Original Message -----
From:
sikmleaders@...

To:

Cc:

Sent:
Wed, 22 May 2013 23:22:16 -0000
Subject:
[sikmleaders] Re: Do we still need the role of info broker/infomediary/knowledge broker?


 

Thanks, all, for your responses. Yes, I agree this role is still relevant. Or perhaps more precisely, this activity is still relevant. The reason for my query is that it seems like social platforms and higher participation on them is enabling a much wider (if not shallower) base of info brokers, who casually act in that capacity as/when they feel like doing it.

Sometimes they see a question they know the answer to, so they post up a response. Other times they stumble on something they think others might find useful, so they deposit it in a group where others with an interest in the topic will see it; or they forward it to a few other people who they believe will be interested.

So in this way info brokering takes place, but in a more distributed, less 'official' fashion. It is against this backdrop of informal, unofficial activity that I am pondering the merit of having formally designated positions, or roles, to fulfill this activity.


Re: Do we still need the role of info broker/infomediary/knowledge broker? #roles

Tom Short <tman9999@...>
 

Thanks, all, for your responses. Yes, I agree this role is still relevant. Or perhaps more precisely, this activity is still relevant. The reason for my query is that it seems like social platforms and higher participation on them is enabling a much wider (if not shallower) base of info brokers, who casually act in that capacity as/when they feel like doing it.

Sometimes they see a question they know the answer to, so they post up a response. Other times they stumble on something they think others might find useful, so they deposit it in a group where others with an interest in the topic will see it; or they forward it to a few other people who they believe will be interested.

So in this way info brokering takes place, but in a more distributed, less 'official' fashion. It is against this backdrop of informal, unofficial activity that I am pondering the merit of having formally designated positions, or roles, to fulfill this activity.


Project Coordinator - Knowledge Practice position available (Madrid) #jobs

Mark Zoeckler
 

Greetings all -

The Boston Consulting Group is seeking a Project Coordinator, Content Sourcing, Integration & Measurement, who will be located in our Madrid, Spain office.  Please find below a copy of the job description that has been posted.  If you or someone you know meets the criteria, resides in Madrid or is willing to relocate there, and holds a valid EUR passport (most holders can receive a work permit for Spain if they hold a valid passport from most EUR countries), please forward your cover letter and resume to Arantxa Mayor at mayor.arantxa@....  Please do not send any inquiries in reply to this posting.

Position description below:

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

Title: Project Coordinator; Content Sourcing, Integration & Measurement

Function: Knowledge Practice (KPA) Global Management

Cohort:  Manager, Supervisor Specialist (MSS)

Location: Madrid

Status: Regular / full�-time (100% role)

Reports to:  Manager Global Sourcing & Global Knowledge Business Architecture Manager

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The Knowledge Practice (KPA) Global Management is a recently established function within BCG. KPA Global Management includes the management of several core functions: external information and expert management; knowledge processes and supporting platforms (knowledge architecture); knowledge support services for endusers and Practice Areas; and knowledge engagement, cultural change and communication.

Position Summary

This role is designed to support the knowledge sourcing operations at BCG, as well as selected projects involving content integration and presentation in our knowledge repositories. While the role supports two areas of the Knowledge Practice Area (Knowledge Business Architecture (KBA) and Information Sourcing), it will be implemented and managed to ensure project types are aligned and relevant, with a clear focus on content sourcing, integration and measurement.

This position has a global scope and involves substantial work with virtual teams around the world. It touches a wide variety of knowledge and research management activities and projects and is an important part of BCG's evolving Creating Knowledge Advantage initiative. It will report to both the Global Knowledge Business Architecture Manager and the Global Sourcing Manager.

Position Responsibilities

Content Sourcing Responsibilities primarily involve the tracking and analysis of BCG's usage and cost of external information sources. Responsibilities may include:

  • Provide decision support analysis, reports and insights on information providers and users in support of overall sourcing strategies
  • Together with colleagues, manage relationships with information providers, including resolving content or technology related issues
  • Collaborate with internal consumers and collect feedback and data on vendors regarding their performance, support, training and value to BCG
  • Analyze and provide insight on knowledge resource inventory changes. This requires understanding the nature of the changes, and managing the impact of changes required by both BCG and external information suppliers
  • Provide insight and analysis to support ongoing optimization of research and information content based on an understanding of how knowledge/information sources are utilized at BCG
  • Evaluate potential new sources and analyze comparable offerings
  • Manage the vendor contracting and administration relationships. Track and report on changes in spending on information sources, track and resolve open invoice issues. Review invoices for accuracy and compare users to inventory and their allocated costs
  • Coordinate content support and training. Where necessary, assume a content support role when advanced or more challenging content issues arise.

Knowledge/Content Coordination Responsibilities primarily involve content integration, presentation and measurement projects. Responsibilities may include:

  • Facilitate and assist with the execution of KBA projects, primarily focused on content management and presentation
  • Assist with development of work plans, team responsibilities and other aspects of project execution
  • Coordinate project activities around governance, business process changes, new services, updated platforms, etc.
  • Support implementation of recommended knowledge and content solutions, including alignment with IT to ensure proper business requirements, communications and training, as well as legal/risk around compliance issues, and other groups as required
  • Coordinate knowledge content usage and contribution metrics development, deployment, analysis and communication to stakeholders
  • Coordinate projects related to content strategy and integration, incorporating a comprehensive view of knowledge and information content strategies
  • Engage closely with project team members and stakeholders, including case teams and practice area knowledge teams, to understand their needs and identify key areas for improvement with regards to knowledge sharing and collaboration
  • Stay current on market trends in the knowledge and information management area to help bring cutting�]edge ideas to BCG

Position Requirements

  • Bachelor's degree required; MBA a plus
  • Minimum of 3�-5 years of project management or relevant business experience; minimum 1�-3 years experience licensing and managing externally provided information; working knowledge of major European information and research providers
  • Project coordination experience is required; including the planning and implementation of projects and initiatives with strong facilitation, requirements gathering, network building and influencing abilities
  • Must have strong and innovative analysis, problem solving and organizational skills as well as ability to track and manage multiple competing priorities and projects
  • Must be eager to identify opportunities for change and ways to solve them
  • Experience gathering and analyzing customer feedback highly desirable
  • Experience using FITS or other inventory management systems a plus
  • High comfort level working in a virtual, matrixed environment. Track record of teamwork across functions and locations. Proven relationship management ability
  • Meticulous attention to detail
  • Strong verbal and written communication skills
  • Ability to communicate effectively with all levels of employees and managers

Please note that this position is not restricted solely to the responsibilities listed above and that the job scope and responsibilities are subject to change.

BCG is an Equal Opportunity Employer


Re: Do we still need the role of info broker/infomediary/knowledge broker? #roles

Daniel_Berhin@...
 
Edited

I agree with Al

If we consider that Knowledge is a market - you would need direct access
channels online but also brokers for more complex interactions and for
users that do not want to search themselves as in any other market direct
service has a share but doesn't kill all intermediation (Banking, Insurance
etc...)

See slide we use sometimes to explicit the concept internally but could
work externally as well

(See attached file: Knowledge Market slide https://groups.io/g/SIKM/files/Attachments//Knowledge+Market+slide.pdf )

Best
Daniel




From: "Simard, Albert" <albert.simard@...>
To: "sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>,
Date: 21/05/2013 18:10
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Do we still need the role of info
broker/infomediary/knowledge broker?
Sent by: sikmleaders@...






Tom –





I use the analogy of a library. Anyone can walk in, use the card catalogue
(oops. I’m revealing my vintage) and find what they’re looking for. But a
librarian can really expedite a search. A second example – for a Global
Disaster Information Network, we envisioned a facilitation service to help
both providers and users interact with the system and with each other.





Al





From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On
Behalf Of Matt Moore
Sent: May-20-13 5:54 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Do we still need the role of info
broker/infomediary/knowledge broker?








Tom,





My take is: probably. Just because people can talk to everyone can talk to
each other doesn't mean they will. And just because everyone can be a "
info creator, info consumer, publisher, and re-broadcaster" doesn't mean
they will be.





What is does mean that knowledge brokers may have a bigger reach & play
more of a strategic role. So the more interesting (if less provocative)
question is: how do these tools shift the role requirements for a knowledge
broker?





Cheers,


Matt

On May 21, 2013, at 7:25 AM, "Tom Short" <tman9999@...> wrote:





In the Web2.0 world, where everyone has the ability to be an info
creator, info consumer, publisher, and re-broadcaster, is there still
the need in large enterprises that have deployed full featured social
enterprise platforms for a formally designated info broker? Or is
this role no longer relevant?

Thanks for sharing your perspective!




+========================================================================+
This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you have received it
in error, please notify us immediately and then delete it. Please do not
copy it, disclose its contents or use it for any purpose.
+========================================================================+


Re: Do we still need the role of info broker/infomediary/knowledge broker? #roles

Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Tom –

 

I use the analogy of a library.  Anyone can walk in, use the card catalogue (oops. I’m revealing my vintage) and find what they’re looking for.  But a librarian can really expedite a search.  A second example – for a Global Disaster Information Network, we envisioned a facilitation service to help both providers and users interact with the system and with each other.  

 

Al

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Matt Moore
Sent: May-20-13 5:54 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Do we still need the role of info broker/infomediary/knowledge broker?

 

 

Tom,

 

My take is: probably. Just because people can talk to everyone can talk to each other doesn't mean they will. And just because everyone can be a " info creator, info consumer, publisher, and re-broadcaster" doesn't mean they will be.

 

What is does mean that knowledge brokers may have a bigger reach & play more of a strategic role. So the more interesting (if less provocative) question is: how do these tools shift the role requirements for a knowledge broker?

 

Cheers,

Matt


On May 21, 2013, at 7:25 AM, "Tom Short" <tman9999@...> wrote:

 

In the Web2.0 world, where everyone has the ability to be an info creator, info consumer, publisher, and re-broadcaster, is there still the need in large enterprises that have deployed full featured social enterprise platforms for a formally designated info broker? Or is this role no longer relevant?

Thanks for sharing your perspective!


Re: Yammer - the conversation continues #Yammer

Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Richard –

 

One indicator of the disconnect between CoPs in their role of creating and validating knowledge and organizations is a comment that I have heard all too frequently: “We have a community that is doing great work but no one listens to us.”  Hence, my promoting explicit KM processes for moving community knowledge into the organizational structure and then into the authoritative hierarchy.  Mostly, however, when someone wants to do social networking and I ask how they will transform the value created by SN into organizational value, I usually get a mesmerized “deer in the headlights” reaction or a demonstration of the really neat blinking  lights. 

 

“Great works are performed not by strength but by perseverance”

Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

The Prince of Abyssinia (1759) 13

 

Al

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of plessons@...
Sent: May-18-13 7:28 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Yammer - the conversation continues

 

 

There is a lot in your response Matt ... I take it from this that the core of your interest relates ..... why an enterprise social networking launch may fall flat?

Reference to definitional aspects is perhaps useful only in relation to reflecting on practice over periods of time. The evolution of cognitive views of the world have big implications for the content of social meaning making. An interesting example is this visualisation showing how Darwin's theory of evolution emerged over a 14 year period. http://benfry.com/traces/ (I had to use google chrome to view this).

I think Al and I might have a shared view in that in the KM space there appears to be constrained thinking that explores the reality of notions of "authority" (and the evolution of authority over time) in enterprises and its relevance to the objectives of social networking, knowledge sharing etc etc i.e. impact on people's behaviour as well.

I watched one of Kai Riemer's videos (thanks -interesting) and he showed / talked about an artifact where it is entirely unclear "what the artifact is". As artifacts become orphaned from their historical context ie... one does not know what the practice /  social context associated with this artifact is for and what was the purpose it was made in the first place. So, it is with organisational knowledge .... as we are still quite unsure how to describe notions of organisational knowledge.

The point I am endeavouring to make is that social networking systems do not at the moment have linkages into authority (social) systems and how knowledge artifacts evolve over time through social critiquing and impact evaluation in the world itself. (The value networks people would say this in another way).

Thus, organisations have authority systems to do some things, and they use things like yammer to do others (social engagement). From a organisational knowledge perspective there is little ability to link these different types of infrastructure as new knowledge emerges and is created. In Australia we have had the good fortune of people who conceived the notion of a "records continuum" to explore the underlying reasons for these shortfalls. It is just that the lack of attention to the "continuum" in the world of organisational management and its likages to KM practice that causes significant problems for KM practitioners.

The metaphor that comes to mind is the childhood activity of "blowing bubbles" without having the right mix to support the practice.

http://www.infotech.monash.edu.au/research/groups/rcrg/publications/recordscontinuum-fupp1.html

Cheers,


Richard 


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

 

To:

"sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>

Cc:

 

Sent:

Sat, 18 May 2013 13:55:38 +1000

Subject:

Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Yammer - the conversation continues


 

Also probably referencing the research by Kai Riemer here:

 

The research by Kai & his associates is well worth checking out. So far it's mostly focused on Australian and German users of Yammer but we're working on broadening that out.


Re: Yammer - the conversation continues #Yammer

Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Richard –

 

I wouldn’t solve a KM problem; I’d solve a business problem.  For example, in one agency, the executive director wanted to use social networking to develop the annual budget, so I set up a wiki for the group.  In just 10 days, they did what normally takes 6-8 weeks of back & forth e-mailing.  They were sold.  

 

Conversely, in the same agency, I tried to set up a wiki so that a task group could collectively develop a white paper on modeling in a regulatory environment.  Oh no, they responded in unison – you write it and we’ll react to what you write.  Because I didn’t have 5 years to change the culture, I did it in the traditional way.   It worked primarily because I listened very carefully to what the group members said.  All this to say that one has to be flexible.

 

You are quite right about not understanding the role of CoPs in organizations.  In a different agency, a senior manager wanted to set up a CoP, so I started using words like engagement, voluntarism, and synergy.  He declared: “That’s not a problem here; we’ll simply tell them that you shall do this and you shall do that.”  What he ended up getting was a bulletin board and I sensed that he wasn’t ready to understand the difference.  In the same agency, a senior manager was told that a Community of Practice had developed a solution to the problem he was concerned with.  “Great,” he replied, “Let’s set up a committee to review the work!”

 

Sigh!

 

Al

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of plessons@...
Sent: May-17-13 7:31 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Yammer - the conversation continues

 

 

Hi Al,

I wonder what do you consider the KM problem is that we would solve?

For my part, I think part of the problem is that we think about CoPs as being "inside" an organisation. It goes back to the limitations of the early work on CoPs and how we understand them as a result. I think Lange and Werner's conceptualisation is limited .... so much of KM lacks a context. Even this discussion ... what is the context of the core question being asked here?

There is a catch 22 .... we often have to de-contextualise our discussions (and questions) on this sort of discussion group because of the highly political nature of the knowledge contexts we grapple with. On the other hand, we cannot assume that any KM intervention can be assumed "to work" from one context to another. Patterns that emerge are contextual.

I wonder if other people share my view (from their experience) that the early conceptions on CoPs lack rigour and the shadows of this still linger on?

Cheers,



Richard





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

 

To:

"sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>

Cc:

 

Sent:

Fri, 17 May 2013 15:51:32 +0000

Subject:

RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Yammer - the conversation continues


 

I see a connection here with a little survey that I did in a “successful” global KM CoP that I participate in.  The question was “Why do you participate in this group?”  After a while, I classified the responses into 7 categories and posted the results.  The bottom line is that about 97% of the responses relate to personal benefits to the participant. 

 

When I asked a follow-up question “How can we transform personal benefits into organizational value?” I got zero responses.  I sense a pattern here!  When we set up CoPs inside an organization, we don’t consider the dichotomy between what’s in it for me? and how do we use CoPs to do organizational work? 

 

It appears that there may be an interesting KM problem to solve!

 

Al Simard

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Matt Moore
Sent: May-17-13 8:29 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Yammer - the conversation continues

 

 

Mark,

 

There are a lot of less than successful stories but from what I've heard, they're all pretty similar: "Some people were using the tool but not that many and it all kinda fizzled out..."

 

If anyone has unsuccessful stories that are different to that then I would also like to hear them.

 

Cheers,

 

Matt


On May 17, 2013, at 6:36 AM, mark.tilbury@... wrote:

 

Does anyone know of any case studies I can find where social business tools have not proved a success. The context is we are deploying a tool and what to present to leadership the good and the bad. All to often we just hear about success stories and any 'wise old dog' would know we can learn more from the failures than reading about a company that deployed to 50k plus and their major metric of success is getting more people on their annual fun run (know disrepect if this is a key metric within your company)!

 

cheers

 

From: Maria Brindlmayer <mbrindlmay001@...>
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Yammer - the conversation continues

 

We piloted Yammer in a large professional services company. It caught on with some marketing groups and some IT people, but did not catch on more broadly. An evaluation of the pilot showed that it did not add a lot of value at the time. The company ultimately banned access to Yammer (but later decided to implement Jive).

-Maria

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:19 PM, albert.simard <albert.simard@...> wrote:

 

A few of us introduced Yammer, but it never caught on in a significant way. Probably because it had no official sponsorship and it was just another thing to keep track of.

A group in our agency is using Jive and I find it far more intuitive and socially aware than SharePoint. However there are reports of two issues: security and liscensing cost. Note: the latter two are hearsay on my part, so check them out yourself.

Al

--- In mailto:sikmleaders%40yahoogroups.com, Matt Moore <innotecture@...> wrote:
>
> Dan,
>
> I have some experience with Yammer & more with Jive. One of the reasons that these tools have gained in popularity is that collaboration functionality that is conversational (rather than document-centric) has traditionally been poor in SharePoint.
>
> One of the issues with Yammer is that it is very much focused on conversation in the now rather than the management & curation of material going forward - or backwards for that matter. An acquaintance of mine at a telco has been working thru some of these issues in terms of capturing recurring questions from Yammer (in effect, finding a middle pace layer between Yammer chat & SharePoint documents).
>
> Nevertheless, I think these kinds of tools are useful. In your situation, you might want to pilot a tool like Yammer with a group that is focused on topics that benefit from fast, free-flowing interaction (e.g. innovation) rather than a business critical single source of truth.
>
> The other thing about Yammer is that because of their business model, there probably already are ConocoPhillips Yammer groups out there (unless you've blocked the Yammer site).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt Moore
> +61 423 784 504
> matt@...
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 13, 2013, at 3:19 AM, "Ranta, Dan" <dan.ranta@...> wrote:
>
> > We continue learning (and wondering) about how Yammer may integrate with our existing KM Program and how we have worked to organize our knowledge workers across our about 17,000-person global workforce. Our program features just over 100 global networks (numbering between about 100 and 800 employees each â€" powered by a customized version of SharePoint 2010). On average our each network member is a member of 3 networks â€" since each network has the same look and feel in our customized version of SharePoint. Our overall approach is embraced by our business as reflected in the great amount of business-based, value-adding collaboration we have daily.
> >
> >
> >
> > Additionally, one of our key commitments to our leadership is that all KM activity will be curated, monitored, and moderated by experienced folks to ensure the best, safest knowledge is shared effectively. Yammer offers an opportunity of broad-based “ad-hoc organization†where we could potentially weaken the strength of our overall program and our moderation / curation.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyone have relevant experiences to share on this? What should we be thinking about and evaluating?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Dan
> >
> >
>

--

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

Maria Brindlmayer

cell: 202-365-2440


Re: Do we still need the role of info broker/infomediary/knowledge broker? #roles

TRflanagan@...
 

Tom and Matt,
 
My take is: Sooner or later, yes.
 
I see the broker as the keeper of the formal and informal meta language about the system.  If the system comes to require redesign -- or integration with the system of a partner or key customer -- the broker is the agent who paves the reintegration path. 
 
t
 

Tom Flanagan
The New Narratives Project
a venture with the Community Foundation of Southeastern Massachusetts
63 Union Street, New Bedford, MA 02740
&
The institute for 21st Century Agoras
www.GlobalAgoras.org
)><((((º>·..¸¸·´¯`·.)><(((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·..¸¸)><((((º> .·´¯`·..)><(((º>.·´¯`·..)><(((º>
"changing the nature of the dialogue is key to changing the nature of the world"
Cell Phone 508 264-0066


 

In a message dated 5/20/2013 5:50:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, innotecture@... writes:
 

Tom,

My take is: probably. Just because people can talk to everyone can talk to each other doesn't mean they will. And just because everyone can be a " info creator, info consumer, publisher, and re-broadcaster" doesn't mean they will be.

What is does mean that knowledge brokers may have a bigger reach & play more of a strategic role. So the more interesting (if less provocative) question is: how do these tools shift the role requirements for a knowledge broker?

Cheers,

Matt

On May 21, 2013, at 7:25 AM, "Tom Short" <tman9999@...> wrote:

 

In the Web2.0 world, where everyone has the ability to be an info creator, info consumer, publisher, and re-broadcaster, is there still the need in large enterprises that have deployed full featured social enterprise platforms for a formally designated info broker? Or is this role no longer relevant?

Thanks for sharing your perspective!


Re: Do we still need the role of info broker/infomediary/knowledge broker? #roles

Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Tom,

My take is: probably. Just because people can talk to everyone can talk to each other doesn't mean they will. And just because everyone can be a " info creator, info consumer, publisher, and re-broadcaster" doesn't mean they will be.

What is does mean that knowledge brokers may have a bigger reach & play more of a strategic role. So the more interesting (if less provocative) question is: how do these tools shift the role requirements for a knowledge broker?

Cheers,

Matt

On May 21, 2013, at 7:25 AM, "Tom Short" <tman9999@...> wrote:

 

In the Web2.0 world, where everyone has the ability to be an info creator, info consumer, publisher, and re-broadcaster, is there still the need in large enterprises that have deployed full featured social enterprise platforms for a formally designated info broker? Or is this role no longer relevant?

Thanks for sharing your perspective!


Do we still need the role of info broker/infomediary/knowledge broker? #roles

Tom Short <tman9999@...>
 

In the Web2.0 world, where everyone has the ability to be an info creator, info consumer, publisher, and re-broadcaster, is there still the need in large enterprises that have deployed full featured social enterprise platforms for a formally designated info broker? Or is this role no longer relevant?

Thanks for sharing your perspective!


May 2013 SIKM Call: Frank Leistner and Gordon Vala-Webb - Taking Knowledge Flow Management to the Next Level with Social Media #monthly-call #social-media

Stan Garfield
 

This is a reminder of tomorrow's monthly call from 11 am to 12 noon EDT.

Note: We will use the KMers.org Twitter channel for online chatting during the call. Visit http://tweetchat.com/room/KMers or http://www.kmers.org/chat or use the #KMers hash tag in Twitter.

-----Original Appointment-----
Subject: SIKM Leaders Community Monthly Call
When: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time
Where: 888-998-2663 or +1 517-222-2222 passcode 406165#

Occurs the third Tuesday of every month from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM Eastern Time (USA)

*6 to mute or unmute line

Conference Call Details

USA and Canada: Toll-Free 888-998-2663 or Toll +1 517-222-2222

PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: 406165

*6 to mute or unmute line

· Community Site http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/

· Slides http://www.slideshare.net/SIKM/favorites

TO JOIN A CONFERENCE

  1. Dial the appropriate access number using a touch-tone phone.
  2. Enter the numeric passcode followed by a '#'
  3. Press *6 to mute or un-mute your line.

ACCESS INFORMATION

To access your conference from one of the following global locations, take the following steps:

1. Find the country from which you are calling and dial the appropriate Global Access number.

2. You will be greeted in English by a prompt to enter the Participant Passcode, followed by the `#' key.

Country Name

Access Number Toll

Access Number Toll-Free

Argentina

N/A

0800-777-0516

Australia

+61-2-6100-1979

1-800-201-385

Australia

+61-2-8211-1394

1-800-201-385

Australia

+61-3-9010-7748

1-800-201-385

Australia

+61-7-3102-0979

1-800-201-385

Australia

+61-8-8121-4877

1-800-201-385

Australia

+61-8-9467-5258

1-800-201-385

Austria

+43-1-92-86-696

0800-677-986

Belgium

+32-3-400-2823

0800-4-8571

Brazil

N/A

0800-761-0638

Canada

+1-517-222-2222

888-998-2663

Chile

N/A

1230-020-2198

China (A)

+86-400-810-4778

10800-712-1318

China (B)

N/A

10800-120-1318

Columbia

N/A

01800-9-157354

Czech Republic

+420-2-25-98-56-59

800-700-229

Denmark

+45-7014-0273

8088-5602

Estonia

N/A

800-011-1123

Finland

Land Line:+106-33-197

0800-1-14118

Finland

Mobile:+09-106-33-197

0800-1-14118

France

+33-1-70-70-62-73

080-510-0799

France-Lyon

+33-4-26-69-12-94

080-510-0799

France-Marseille

+33-4-86-06-00-94

080-510-0799

Germany

+49-69-2222-7225

0800-000-1651

Greece

+30-80-1-100-0673

00800-12-6871

Hong Kong

+852-3001-3840

800-900-608

Hungary

N/A

06-800-17729

India

N/A

N/A

Indonesia

N/A

001-803-011-3694

Ireland

+353-1-247-5439

1800-932-076

Israel

N/A

1-80-9214814

Italy

+39-02-3604-7075

0800-987-465

Japan- Osaka

+81-6-7739-4778

0034-800-400711

Japan-Tokyo

+81-3-5539-5162

0034-800-400711

Luxembourg

+352-27-000-1350

N/A

Malaysia

N/A

1-800-81-2127

Mexico

N/A

001-866-886-8656

Netherlands

+31-20-718-8509

0800-020-0441

New Zealand

+64-9-970-4658

0800-448-918

Norway

+47-21-59-00-19

800-18394

Panama

N/A

011-001-800-5072123

Poland

N/A

00-800-1211867

Portugal

N/A

8008-60222

Russia

N/A

8-10-8002-9553011

Singapore

+65-6883-9206

800-120-4269

Slovak Republic

+421-2-322-422-34

N/A

South Africa

N/A

080-09-92295

South Korea

+82-2-6744-1060

00798-14800-6731

Spain

+34-91-414-0906

800-098-442

Sweden

+46-8-505-78-404

0200-890-120

Switzerland

+41-44-580-6289

0800-001-293

Taiwan

+886-2-2795-7356

00801-137-696

Thailand

N/A

001-800-1206-65539

United Kingdom

+44-20-7108-6256

0800-279-3952

UK - Birmingham

+44-121-210-9034

0800-279-3952

UK - Glasgow

+44-141-202-3234

0800-279-3952

UK - Leeds

+44-113-301-2134

0800-279-3952

UK - Manchester

+44-161-601-1434

0800-279-3952

Uruguay

N/A

000-413-598-3470

USA

+1-517-222-2222

888-998-2663

Venezuela

N/A

0800-1-00-2788


Re: Yammer - the conversation continues #Yammer

Susan Hanley
 

Dan, you are asking an interesting but impossible to answer question when you ask "what's better, the social out of the box with SharePoint 2013 or Yammer?" The answer, of course, is "it depends."

Microsoft has clearly stated that if you are using SharePoint in the cloud, then you should use Yammer as your "newsfeed." They would like people to make that switch now, but as of this moment, the two products, SharePoint 2013 and Yammer, are integrated only if you do it yourself, which is not impossible to do, but not entirely painless either. From the perspective of my current clients, the integration is not necessarily ideal - at least right now, even for those using SharePoint Online. For example, if you were to implement SharePoint and Yammer out of the box today, your users would have two profiles and two completely disconnected #hashtags and @mentions. That said, the integration story is only going to get better - starting this summer as described in the roadmap, but not every aspect of the integration story has been made public yet.

If you are using SharePoint on premises, then committing to Yammer means you are OK with having your social conversations in the cloud, which is acceptable for some organizations but not for others. Microsoft is clear - Yammer is and will be a cloud-based solution. If that doesn't fit for your organization, you can use the SharePoint 2013 Newsfeed or a third party product like NewsGator, which integrates very well today and is totally on premises.

SharePoint 2013 "social" out of the box is light-years ahead of where things were with SharePoint 2010, though we all wonder how much "love" it's going to get going forward. The three current organizations I'm working with right now are sticking with SharePoint 2013 social "out of the box" for now, though the story is not yet fully written and since they are all in the early stages of deployment, we'll have to see how this pans out going forward. Here's what you do get in SharePoint 2013 "social" out of the box right now:
  • Ability to follow people, documents, and sites.
  • Feature rich activity feed that pulls in information from sites and people and documents that you are following.
  • Social conversations with #hashtags and @mentions that pull from your "people" directory.
  • The same #hashtags and @mentions can also be referenced in discussion forums, which had a MAJOR facelift for SharePoint 2013 and include some light-weight gamification features including points, badges and a leaderboard showing the top contributors. You can only get points for 4 activities out of the box, but there are endless possibilities for customization. The new Community Site template (which is a fancy discussion forum) is designed to support communities of practice, and while it's not perfect and there are some "gotchas ," it's a step in the right direction. One of my favorite features is that when you have a discussion in a discussion forum, you can attach a document - but the document is not stored as a disconnected attachment to a list item. Instead, the contributor is required to indicate a document library in which to store the document and then SharePoint creates a link to the document in the discussion post. The contributor gets prompted for all the library metadata right from the discussion post so both discussions and documents are "findable" later on.
  • Social conversations in the Newsfeed completely integrated with SharePoint 2013 search, which is really fantastic. Search in SharePoint 2013 may be the best reason to upgrade, but there are other very terrific user-oriented capabilities that I think are important as well (which I blogged about in March). There is a really fantastic preview feature when search finds a conversation.
  • Ability for users to see all their followed hashtags in one place and add hashtags that they want to follow from their profile.

I know that for some organizations, the out of the box SharePoint 2013 Newsfeed is not going to be enough and Yammer definitely has a better conversation experience. However, until Yammer is completely integrated - including all the tagging and ease of contributing documents and "findability" in search and shared user profiles - the out of the box Newsfeed is going to work for a lot of organizations who are still dipping their toes into the social space.

At the end of the day, social and communities are about so much more than just the enabling technologies - nurturing, relevance to work, access in the "flow of work," and so many other "non-technical" things are just as important as the technology used to support them. And since this is an opportunity to provide two shameless plugs: first, Richard McDermott and I are going to do a workshop on this very topic at KM World 2013 this November - talking about "cultivating [technology enabled] communities of practice" and specifically how to leverage SharePoint 2013 (and Yammer) to do so and second, in just about a month, the book that has consumed my life for the past 6 months will finally be available, Essential SharePoint 2013: Practical Guidance for Measurable Business Results.

Sue

SusanS. Hanley
SUSAN HANLEY LLC

sue@...

www.susanhanley.com

blog:
www.networkworld.com/community/sharepoint


--- In sikmleaders@..., "Ranta, Dan" wrote:
>
> Thanks Stan - you are always so helpful and willing to share your experiences.
>
> Here we sit in our company with what is a world class KM program - by many accounts. But despite our strong executive support, business value captured, engagement across the business, etc., we believe we have to continue to try to make things better. We can't see the future, but in terms of our enablement (technology and processes) our knowledge workers often ask for a more fluid and dynamic (I guess this is "social") environment.
>
> A follow-up question on this subject is: what's better, the social out of the box with SharePoint 2013 or Yammer?
>
> From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of StanGarfield
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 6:02 PM
> To: sikmleaders@...
> Subject: [EXTERNAL][sikmleaders] Re: Yammer - the conversation continues
>
>
>
> >Yammer offers an opportunity of broad-based "ad-hoc organization" where we could potentially weaken the strength of our overall program and our moderation / curation. Anyone have relevant experiences to share on this? What should we be thinking about and evaluating?
> Dan, when Yammer first started to be used in my firm, I was prepared to explain why it shouldn't be used for community discussions, because we were already using SharePoint discussion boards. And there continue to be similar concerns about the differences between Yammer and formal knowledge repositories. My thinking has evolved since then.
>
> Here are some of my current thoughts.
> Use Yammer to quickly connect and interact with global colleagues
>
> 1. Share a link, e.g., here is a link to the latest Forrester Wave report on social networking
> 2. Ask a question, e.g., has anyone encountered this problem before, and if so, how was it solved?
> 3. Find a resource, e.g., looking for a specialist in retirement benefits to help win a bid in Calgary
> 4. Answer a post, e.g., here are links to three relevant quals in the quals database
> 5. Recognize a colleague, e.g., thanks to Jane for hosting an excellent planning session today
> 6. Inform about your activities, e.g., will be in the Philadelphia office today; does anyone wish to meet?
> 7. Suggest an idea, e.g., local office TV screens should display the global Yammer conversation stream
> Use KM systems to access knowledge assets and expertise to sell work and deliver value
>
> 1. Finding and reusing knowledge assets (research, insights, methods, and tools) to deliver value to clients throughout the project life cycle
> 2. Accessing our collective experience through documents and qualifications
> 3. Showcasing expertise and finding experts via profiles (which will include Yammer feeds)
> 4. Connecting and collaborating with communities (which will include Yammer-based discussion boards)
> 5. Contributing knowledge assets to the global organization
> Cross-linking between the two becomes very important. We embed Yammer on SharePoint sites, and link from Yammer to KM systems.
>
> It's useful to create lists in SharePoint containing the important questions and answers mined from Yammer discussions. For example, I compiled a SharePoint list with 125 FAQs about using Yammer, which is in one place, searchable, and can be sorted and filtered.
>
> If you can't or don't wish to use Yammer for your community discussions, consider using it for general discussions not specific to one community. If you monitor the All Conversations feed, you can look for posts which can be redirected to specific communities. And you can answer questions, keep tabs on the pulse of the organizatio! n, and get acquainted with new people.
>
> You can also integrate Yammer with transaction systems to add a social layer and a more extensive activity stream. And now that Yammer is part of Microsoft, you can expect better integration with Office and other Microsoft products.
>
> In summary, look for ways to integrate Yammer with other systems, see if you can make it the social component of existing systems, cross-link between Yammer and other systems, and clearly define when to use each system. I will be glad to discuss this in greater detail if you like.
>


Re: Yammer - the conversation continues #Yammer

Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Stephen (& Richard),
 
" Can Yammer expose information from an organisation's CRM?"
 
This is precisely what many organisations are looking at. Now Yammer offer a bunch of integrations: https://www.yammer.com/applications but I can't vouch for their effectiveness. Incidentally a major Yammer competitor is Salesforce Chatter.
 
One FS company of my acquaintance has a lot of process-based work that they want to add a collaborative layer to. They've collected 100 use cases and they're steadily prioritising them and looking at integrating a Yammer competitor into those. They did try using the SharePoint Connector option and when they turned it on, it crashed the ESN platform. Too many docs it would seem.
 
As for records mgt, that's a whole other kettle of fish. After all, if a conversation is in writing and kept on a server, it becomes discoverable. Again, my perception is that people are working thru those issues. Incidentally, I was in a workshop run by these guys which looked interesting: http://weito.com.au/ - altho it dealt with public social media (rather than behind the firewall).
 
Cheers,
 
Matt

6381 - 6400 of 9974