Date   

Re: Gartner on KM #state-of-KM

 

Nice one.

______
Best regards,
Deependra Tandukar
http://deependra.tandukar.net
-----
A 'TEAM' is not a group of people who work together, rather it's a group of people who 'TRUST' each other.

On Apr 20, 2017 5:23 AM, "Daan Boom daanboom@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Following earlier articles that KM is dead, herewith an inspring Gartner presentation by Brian Manusama stressing the opposite. Gartner removed KM from its chart a few years ago so its good to see that they put back in their attention scheme. 


Gartner: Next-gen knowledge management to succeed in the digital age.


 Daan


Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an ESN #WOL #ESN

Tom Short <tman9999@...>
 

I think we sometimes focus too much on contribution and active participation in terms of evaluating ESNs. Seems to me this is a holdover from the "olden days" of KM, when the focus was on getting users to contribute content to repositories so that others might re-use it. Ultimately we learned that collection means nothing without re-use, and re-use was not something that was easily detected or measured back in the early days.

So here we are with ESNs that look an awful lot like old skool web discussion forums of yore (which is where the term "lurking" originated - and with a most benign meaning, btw), and we are still hung up on focusing on content generation/contribution.

If active contribution and participation were really the key to generating value, resources like Wikipedia would be a mess. The real value comes from re-use, which in ESNs is a measured by page views (or even individual post views). Just because someone is lurking doesn't mean they are not deriving value from an ESN. Or that the ESN isn't delivering value to its firm.

Ultimately our focus should be more on the value an ESN creates, and the mechanisms by which it creates it. No, it's not always easy to measure this. But to me that's where the action is - not in making sure everyone is posting something all the time.

Tom Short
San Francisco


Re: Gartner on KM #state-of-KM

Frank Guerino
 

Hi Daan,

Yes, Mr. Manusama does make the statement that KM is not about technology alone and I agree with this statement.  We all must consider, though, that in the cases of products that revolve around AI, ML, etc., which are evolving to dominate most people’s daily lives, the People (skills), Processes, and Tools that will be required to produce them are those of IT.  People without those skills will have very little influence or input into the KM solutions that are AI related, especially when the interfaces to such solutions are also being dominated by technologies (mobile, wearable devices, etc.).

The part of all this that will not be IT related will continue to be the human who is the consumer of such products.  What he/she uses such solutions for or what he/she derives from such solutions will always be the human side of KM.

My Best,

Frank
Frank Guerino, Managing Partner
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)

From: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Date: Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:25 PM
To: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Gartner on KM

 

Hi Frank:

Gartner specically emphasizes in the presentation that KM is not about technology alone but forms a lesser, but integral part, of people and process. Technology is also becoming more and more ingrained in what we do on a day2day basis so technology can not be excluded from what we do. The bigger part of KM is how to make the knowledge sharing connection between people and how to design organizations or networks effectively so that available knowledge is used and learning takes place. The problem is that KM does not have a real home: The KM subject, shaped academically by philosophist but put on the business agenda by economists, followed by social social and mathematics/information scientist. Like so many subjects, KM is a multidiscplenary endeavour where all 3 disciplines have to act together to make it work. 

Daan


Re: Gartner on KM #state-of-KM

Frank Guerino
 

Hi Matt,

Yes, I agree that the hype around AI and ML are very high, just like around Big Data, Digital Transformation, IT Transformation, and all the other “big things” that marketeers think up.  This supports the recommendation that there must always be a tempered blend of, both, humans and technologies when applying such evolving solutions.  This may not be the case for highly mature technologies that can simply be “turned on” and expected to work but it definitely is the case for anything that is less mature.

Creating such a "tempered blend” highlights what I believe to be a very important issue in KM.  It means that even the person designing such a blend must clearly understand the technologies (what they can and cannot do) in order to apply them toward the solving of real business problems.  The only other options is that he/she must pay someone who does understand them.  We are evolving into a space where, more and more, there will be no such things as business solutions that don’t require a clear understanding of IT and its uses.

Would you agree or disagree with this?

My Best,

Frank
Frank Guerino, Managing Partner
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)


From: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 1:25 AM
To: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Broken Link on Next Generation KM from Gartner

 

Hi Daan,

Thanks for posting the link. Having scanned thru the presentation, I largely agree with the presenter.

- AI is having a big impact in the contact cent-, er, sorry omni-channel environment. eGain is a software vendor focused on contact centers / omni-channel (competing with the likes of Verint). And Brian Manusama's background is in contact centers and CRM. In this environment, KM has a very specific focus - which explains some of the emphasis in the talk e.g. customer self-service, virtual intelligence agents, natural language processing, etc. A fair bit of it can be generalised to other contexts but it is important to acknowledge the background.
- About a year ago I was working in this space and the interest in AI was not just showing up in vendor presentations but also customer RFPs. What was also clear from the RFPs was that customers did not necessarily understand the technologies that they were asking about nor appreciate some of the complexities of implementing them well. I would note that Manusama's presentation calls out "exaggerated technology claims" as something to watch out for. I would also suggest people check where machine learning is positioned on Gartner's latest technology hype cycle.
- I'd also note that Manusama proposes a blended human-technology approach rather than 100% machine learning.

I think anyone involved in knowledge or information management should be across the capabilities, opportunities and limitations of AI and ML (and if you want play around with k-mean algorithms then go right ahead). I am less convinced that all organisational knowledge issues reduce to machine learning technical problems solvable with our current technology just yet and therefore we can throw out everything that we've learned from sociology, psychology, and cognitive science about human performance but I don't foresee a debate on that topic playing out in a constructive manner so I will leave it at that.

Regards,

Matt


Re: Gartner on KM #state-of-KM

Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Hi Daan,

Thanks for posting the link. Having scanned thru the presentation, I largely agree with the presenter.

- AI is having a big impact in the contact cent-, er, sorry omni-channel environment. eGain is a software vendor focused on contact centers / omni-channel (competing with the likes of Verint). And Brian Manusama's background is in contact centers and CRM. In this environment, KM has a very specific focus - which explains some of the emphasis in the talk e.g. customer self-service, virtual intelligence agents, natural language processing, etc. A fair bit of it can be generalised to other contexts but it is important to acknowledge the background.
- About a year ago I was working in this space and the interest in AI was not just showing up in vendor presentations but also customer RFPs. What was also clear from the RFPs was that customers did not necessarily understand the technologies that they were asking about nor appreciate some of the complexities of implementing them well. I would note that Manusama's presentation calls out "exaggerated technology claims" as something to watch out for. I would also suggest people check where machine learning is positioned on Gartner's latest technology hype cycle.
- I'd also note that Manusama proposes a blended human-technology approach rather than 100% machine learning.

I think anyone involved in knowledge or information management should be across the capabilities, opportunities and limitations of AI and ML (and if you want play around with k-mean algorithms then go right ahead). I am less convinced that all organisational knowledge issues reduce to machine learning technical problems solvable with our current technology just yet and therefore we can throw out everything that we've learned from sociology, psychology, and cognitive science about human performance but I don't foresee a debate on that topic playing out in a constructive manner so I will leave it at that.

Regards,


Matt

On Friday, 21 April 2017, 8:45, "Daan Boom daanboom@gmail.com [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Sorry to read that the link I shared didnt work: Herewith the full link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkAGhOpUFKc&_cldee=ZnJhbmsuemVyb3NwYWNlQHBsYW5ldC5ubA%3d%3d&recipientid=lead-ab3eadaa206ce41193c3a45d36fc0f48-e6f23e82a79a4dfcbd5a186c15b2f5d3&esid=bc5f20d0-c524-e711-8114-e0071b6ac161


Re: Gartner on KM #state-of-KM

Daan Boom
 

Hi Frank:

Gartner specically emphasizes in the presentation that KM is not about technology alone but forms a lesser, but integral part, of people and process. Technology is also becoming more and more ingrained in what we do on a day2day basis so technology can not be excluded from what we do. The bigger part of KM is how to make the knowledge sharing connection between people and how to design organizations or networks effectively so that available knowledge is used and learning takes place. The problem is that KM does not have a real home: The KM subject, shaped academically by philosophist but put on the business agenda by economists, followed by social social and mathematics/information scientist. Like so many subjects, KM is a multidiscplenary endeavour where all 3 disciplines have to act together to make it work. 

Daan


On 20 Apr 2017, at 20:20, Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Hi Daan,

I don’t know if the underlying message of this video is what many people in the KM community really want to hear.  Specifically, the message in Mr. Manusama's presentation is that AI, Machine Learning, and Data are the future of KM because KM will be an advanced “Digital" experience.  His message highlights a very important topic that many in KM who are not technical hate to admit, which is that: "The future of KM is Information Technology (IT), which already dominates the KM industry, today, and will only do so even more, in the future.”  So, yes, Gartner did remove KM from their chart a number of years ago but now they’re making it clear that the future of KM is an IT play.

My Best,

Frank
Frank Guerino, Managing Partner
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)

From: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 7:38 PM
To: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Subject: [sikmleaders] Gartner on KM

 

Following earlier articles that KM is dead, herewith an inspring Gartner presentation by Brian Manusama stressing the opposite. Gartner removed KM from its chart a few years ago so its good to see that they put back in their attention scheme. 


Gartner: Next-gen knowledge management to succeed in the digital age.


 Daan




Gartner on KM #state-of-KM

Daan Boom
 

On 20 Apr 2017, at 09:06, Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

[Attachment(s) from Patrick Lambe included below]

Hi Dan - thanks for sharing - I wasn’t able to open this link.


Patrick

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg


Re: Understanding why Knowledge Repositories Fail - The Wikipedia Problem #knowledge-capture

 

Great article shared Frank!  Thank you!

 

Bill

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 16:15
To: SIKM Leaders
Subject: [sikmleaders] Understanding why Knowledge Repositories Fail - The Wikipedia Problem

 

 

Hi All,

 

Some of you may have heard me refer to The Wikipedia Problem, in the past, when discussing concepts like knowledge repositories.  It is my opinion that all good KM professionals should be very familiar with it, since it impacts the delivery of content and knowledge repositories.  If you’re interested, the details have been more formally summarized as reference for numerous lectures for universities and professional organizations.  The full article is: “The Wikipedia Problem – Understanding why most Enterprise Knowledge Repositories Fail."

 

 

If you have any questions or feedback, please let me know.  In the mean time, I hope you find the materials interesting and useful.

 

My Best,

 

Frank

Frank Guerino, Managing Partner

The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)


Re: Gartner on KM #state-of-KM

Frank Guerino
 

Hi Daan,

I don’t know if the underlying message of this video is what many people in the KM community really want to hear.  Specifically, the message in Mr. Manusama's presentation is that AI, Machine Learning, and Data are the future of KM because KM will be an advanced “Digital" experience.  His message highlights a very important topic that many in KM who are not technical hate to admit, which is that: "The future of KM is Information Technology (IT), which already dominates the KM industry, today, and will only do so even more, in the future.”  So, yes, Gartner did remove KM from their chart a number of years ago but now they’re making it clear that the future of KM is an IT play.

My Best,

Frank
Frank Guerino, Managing Partner
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)

From: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 7:38 PM
To: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Subject: [sikmleaders] Gartner on KM

 

Following earlier articles that KM is dead, herewith an inspring Gartner presentation by Brian Manusama stressing the opposite. Gartner removed KM from its chart a few years ago so its good to see that they put back in their attention scheme. 


Gartner: Next-gen knowledge management to succeed in the digital age.


 Daan


Re: Gartner on KM #state-of-KM

Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Dan - thanks for sharing - I wasn’t able to open this link.

Patrick

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 20 Apr 2017, at 7:38 AM, Daan Boom daanboom@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

Following earlier articles that KM is dead, herewith an inspring Gartner presentation by Brian Manusama stressing the opposite. Gartner removed KM from its chart a few years ago so its good to see that they put back in their attention scheme. 


Gartner: Next-gen knowledge management to succeed in the digital age.


 Daan



Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an ESN #WOL #ESN

Patrick Lambe
 

Everything that’s been said is fine in principle, but there are a few important hedges to explain why the task of design and facilitation is difficult (abstract principles are the devil to implement in practice in KM!):

1. There is rarely one homogeneous type of “user” - communities and social networks, enterprise or otherwise, conceal a great diversity of needs and challenges and contexts and personalities. And value is very context sensitive, as we all know. Why do we respond to a similar post here on one day and not another? To design and facilitate for value, we need to understand the typology of needs.

2. A couple of people pointed out that visible participation is a crude marker of value. Etienne Wenger’s book with Jean Lave (before the CoP book) was on legitimate peripheral participation - learning by observing and absorbing.

3. A community or enterprise social network is not the same thing as a KM tool. They may overlap, but the dynamics of their use are affected by different things. KM tools are typically designed to be transactional. Identify a range of needs and streamline how the needs are met. Communities and social networks are highly sensitive to personality and culture, and the ebbs and flows of energy that go along with personality and culture. Which is why you need warm, welcoming and helpful people in a community (as Nancy pointed out), and why those people can actually overcome issues with the tools being used, but conversely, you can have wonderfully designed tools and in-principle utility of design functioning badly with an impersonal culture.

4. Different people - and groups of people - have different starting points and preferences in relation to using technology tools for collaboration and sharing, and they have different styles of working with others generally. 

So sure, design for value makes a lot of sense, and we often neglect that. But in practice that can mean a lot of different things, and it is easier to trace the links between design for value and participation in transactional KM systems than it is for social networks and communities. The latter are just a heck of a lot more mysterious (unless you find a bunch of good people who are willing to put their personal energy and social capital into unlocking that mystery).

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 20 Apr 2017, at 1:48 AM, 'chuck georgo' chuck@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Yes, and you should take the value equation out five levels – don’t just stop with the user, address these five levels: (apologies in advance to Don Kirkpatrick):

 

  • Level 1 – does the user find it useful and easy to use (satisfaction)
  • Level 2 – does the user feel their performance is enhanced because of it? (improvement in KSAs)
  • Level 3 – does the user’s boss see better performance from the user because of it (on the job behaviors) 
  • Level 3 – is there positive business impact because of the improved performance? (business impact)
  • Level 5 -  is there an appreciable ROI on the original investment? (benefits/cost)

 

So, I would suggest that if you want to improve the “stickiness” of a KM tool/intervention (or reduce lurkers), then build a value chain that addresses these five levels

 

r/Chuck

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:11 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

  

Agree.  It also comes down to “value.”  Do people find value in investing their limited time in anything that does not add to their ability to be successful?  This “return on value” seems consistent in every client with whom we work.

Bill

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:07
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

  

It’s interesting…you have just hit on something that has troubled me greatly in my many years of working to build adoption of KM…we tend to want to make things more complicated, rather than working to make understanding and adoption easier.

 

So, to me (and please, no offense intended), it really doesn’t matter how many models there are to explain contribution, lurking, adoption, etc., the simple truth is whether or not the intended users are ACTUALLY USING whatever process, portal, or solution you developed for them. 

 

At the end of the day, most of our discussions are around the “technology” – whether it’s a desktop, laptop, ipad, smart phone, most KM solutions today DO depend on technology. Unfortunately, most of it is not designed by users  - I see this every day, not only in the context of clients, but also in many of my own personal online interactions (as I am sure others in this group experience).

 

I think that we really only need to ask TWO questions of users: 1) is this ____ KM tool easy for you to use?; and, 2) is it useful to what you are trying to do? And, IMHO, both of these get to the heart of behavior, because if the answers to these are not “hell yeah” than we will not see the behavior to come back and use it again and again.

 

As you might guess, I’m a big fan of Occam’s Razor J

 

r/Chuck

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 9:20 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

  

I devote a considerable amount of space in my doctoral dissertation (http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=finance_etds) to the problem of "adoption" and some of the issues with trying to apply the TAM model to it.  Starting on page 16:

 

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

 

"ESNs also present problems for existing adoption models in the research literature, in part because of their blended nature due to the intersection of the groupware and social media trajectories discussed earlier. Attempts have been made to apply many different theories and models to explain social business adoption: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Task-Technology Fit Theory (TTF) and Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) (Zhang, 2010); Diffusion of Innovations (Cardon & Marshall, 2014); Technology-Organization Environment Theory (TOE) (Saldanha & Krishnan, 2012); Hedonic Theory (Holsapple & Wu, 2007); Representation Theory (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013); Social Presence Theory, Channel Expansion Theory, and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (S. A. Brown, Dennis, & Venkatesh, 2010); Transactive Memory Theory (Keskin & Taskin, 2013).

  

Because of this blended history, ESNs do not fit neatly into most of the more traditional models and frameworks because they have elements of adoption that are related to both business use and social activity. The groupware trajectory has behind it a long history of the study of traditional IT systems, where the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) has a strong hold. TAM argues that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are the primary driving forces for the adoption of new technology. Although well established, TAM is derived from the study of IT systems that were designed for a specific purpose. In most of these systems there is little flexibility in how they are used, and the purpose is often one that is necessary for some particular business process. In these cases, “adoption” is simply a matter of use or non-use. 

  

However, ESNs are often voluntary in the sense that business processes can be done without them. An employee or team might choose to use email, phone calls, or face-to-face meetings to collaborate, rather than the social platform. And as illustrated above, those employees who do use ESNs might choose to use them in a variety of ways, at different frequencies, and for a variety of purposes, some of which may not be directly business-related. As a counter to TAM, hedonic theory arising from research on social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter suggests that adoption is dependent on enjoyment and perceived critical mass (Harden, 2012; Sledgianowski & Kulviwat, 2009; van der Heijden, 2004). It is not difficult to imagine that perceived usefulness and enjoyment might both play key roles in the adoption of an ESN."





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





I go on in more detail, but in essence models such as TAM try to describe the adoption of a technology, but what most companies really want when deploying an ESN is the adoption of a behavior.  These are two very different things.

 

 




Re: Gartner on KM #state-of-KM

 
Edited

Whenever this topic comes back up, I like to share this meme.
https://sikm.groups.io/g/main/photo/137830/1639451/meme_KM.jpg

 

Bill

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 19:38
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Gartner on KM

 

 

Following earlier articles that KM is dead, herewith an inspring Gartner presentation by Brian Manusama stressing the opposite. Gartner removed KM from its chart a few years ago so its good to see that they put back in their attention scheme. 

 

Gartner: Next-gen knowledge management to succeed in the digital age.

 

 

 Daan

 


Gartner on KM #state-of-KM

Daan Boom
 

Following earlier articles that KM is dead, herewith an inspring Gartner presentation by Brian Manusama stressing the opposite. Gartner removed KM from its chart a few years ago so its good to see that they put back in their attention scheme. 

Gartner: Next-gen knowledge management to succeed in the digital age.


 Daan


Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an ESN #WOL #ESN

Lee Romero
 

Thanks, Stan!  Very useful :)

I like Tony M's last comment there - "Culture isn't conducive to visible questions."

I translate that into what you and I have called the "fear of asking" (and you mention in your post on "Why people won't ask questions").  

I see that with the organization I'm in.  People don't like to ask questions "publicly" (in a community or ESN) because it means they don't know the answer and who wants to admit they don't know the answer?  Instead, they hand-pick a few people they know and directly ask them (via email or IM).  Less "risk" but also less likely to get a good answer (unless you're really lucky and happen to know someone directly who has the answer) and also it does not make the conversation visible to others (so no benefit to others).

Regards
Lee


On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:47 PM, stangarfield@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Lee, here is the full Twitter discussion:
  • Stan Garfield: What makes a great community?
  • Peter Staal‏: Just curious, how did you come up with the number of 100 members at least?
  • Stan Garfield‏: See Does Size Matter in Communities? and 90-9-1 Rule of Thumb: Fact or Fiction?
  • Peter Staal‏: And if you have 97 percent lurkers, how can one derive value if the group size is only 200?
  • Stan Garfield‏: Lurkers are not a negative - they are a basic fact of all communities. If they pay attention and learn, there is great value to be derived.
  • Peter Staal‏: Your data suggests that is it more or less wasted time to try to convert lurkers to creators. Since 97 percent is a given. Correct?
  • Stan Garfield‏: Power curve distribution: order of magnitude difference between members, active members & very active members. Don't try to convert lurkers.
  • Peter Staal‏: So the focus should be more on growth, rather than engagement tactics?
  • Stan Garfield‏: Both. Community leaders should SHAPE: Schedule calls/meetings, Host them, Answer questions, Post useful info, & Expand membership/content
  • Peter Staal‏: But what impact does SHAPE have on the 2-2-98 rule? Will it increase contributions?
  • Stan Garfield‏: The rule of thumb is 90-9-1. SHAPE will draw out contributions from the 10% who are active, and deliver benefits to the other 90%.
  • Peter Staal‏: What do you think about Working Out Loud (WOL) to increase participation? Is it possible to rise above the 10 %?
  • Stan Garfield‏: I agree with John Stepper on WOL, but also with Jakob Nielsen: “How to Overcome Participation Inequality: You can't." See 8 reasons for working out loud and narrating your work
  • Peter Staal‏: Also, if only ten percent is active why engage the entire workforce in a WOL program?
  • Stan Garfield‏: Suggestions: 1. Listen to the recording of the SIKM Leaders Community call with John Stepper on WOL and KM 2. Discuss this in the Yahoo Group so others can benefit
  • Peter Staal‏: Done
  • Tony Melendez‏: I would add to "compelling topic" the significance of promoting the "question". Incentivize posting questions, reward inquisitive users.
  • Stan Garfield‏: See Why people won't ask questions and Sound of Silence and Motivating Behavior
  • Tony Melendez‏: Love this! This is a MAJOR obstacle in the KSA. Culture isn't conducive to visible questions. Visible answers, yes. Questions, not so much.




Understanding why Knowledge Repositories Fail - The Wikipedia Problem #knowledge-capture

Frank Guerino
 

Hi All,

Some of you may have heard me refer to The Wikipedia Problem, in the past, when discussing concepts like knowledge repositories.  It is my opinion that all good KM professionals should be very familiar with it, since it impacts the delivery of content and knowledge repositories.  If you’re interested, the details have been more formally summarized as reference for numerous lectures for universities and professional organizations.  The full article is: “The Wikipedia Problem – Understanding why most Enterprise Knowledge Repositories Fail."


If you have any questions or feedback, please let me know.  In the mean time, I hope you find the materials interesting and useful.

My Best,

Frank
Frank Guerino, Managing Partner
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)


Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an ESN #WOL #ESN

Stan Garfield
 

Lee, here is the full Twitter discussion:
  • Stan Garfield: What makes a great community?
  • Peter Staal‏: Just curious, how did you come up with the number of 100 members at least?
  • Stan Garfield‏: See Does Size Matter in Communities? and 90-9-1 Rule of Thumb: Fact or Fiction?
  • Peter Staal‏: And if you have 97 percent lurkers, how can one derive value if the group size is only 200?
  • Stan Garfield‏: Lurkers are not a negative - they are a basic fact of all communities. If they pay attention and learn, there is great value to be derived.
  • Peter Staal‏: Your data suggests that is it more or less wasted time to try to convert lurkers to creators. Since 97 percent is a given. Correct?
  • Stan Garfield‏: Power curve distribution: order of magnitude difference between members, active members & very active members. Don't try to convert lurkers.
  • Peter Staal‏: So the focus should be more on growth, rather than engagement tactics?
  • Stan Garfield‏: Both. Community leaders should SHAPE: Schedule calls/meetings, Host them, Answer questions, Post useful info, & Expand membership/content
  • Peter Staal‏: But what impact does SHAPE have on the 2-2-98 rule? Will it increase contributions?
  • Stan Garfield‏: The rule of thumb is 90-9-1. SHAPE will draw out contributions from the 10% who are active, and deliver benefits to the other 90%.
  • Peter Staal‏: What do you think about Working Out Loud (WOL) to increase participation? Is it possible to rise above the 10 %?
  • Stan Garfield‏: I agree with John Stepper on WOL, but also with Jakob Nielsen: “How to Overcome Participation Inequality: You can't." See 8 reasons for working out loud and narrating your work
  • Peter Staal‏: Also, if only ten percent is active why engage the entire workforce in a WOL program?
  • Stan Garfield‏: Suggestions: 1. Listen to the recording of the SIKM Leaders Community call with John Stepper on WOL and KM 2. Discuss this in the Yahoo Group so others can benefit
  • Peter Staal‏: Done
  • Tony Melendez‏: I would add to "compelling topic" the significance of promoting the "question". Incentivize posting questions, reward inquisitive users.
  • Stan Garfield‏: See Why people won't ask questions and Sound of Silence and Motivating Behavior
  • Tony Melendez‏: Love this! This is a MAJOR obstacle in the KSA. Culture isn't conducive to visible questions. Visible answers, yes. Questions, not so much.


Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an ESN #WOL #ESN

Lee Romero
 

Great discussion here!

It's funny that this thread kicks off with a reference to a discussion with Stan Garfield - Stan and I have had many discussions about adoption / lurkers in ESNs (or communities in general) over the last several years.

One of the takeaways for me from those conversations (and I'll admit - I did not read the Twitter conversation originally linked to, maybe Stan raises this there?) was that in many (most? all?) communities of any size, you DO NOT want to convert all lurkers to active participants.

The logic I use is if you believe the "90-9-1" rule (or if you agree with the idea but perhaps have different percentages), if you imagine that you convert that to a simple "100", the community probably becomes unusable.  

As an example - we have a community that's about 10K people.  In that particular community, I think the number breaks down to something more like 98-1.9-0.1.  And that provides a reasonably comprehensible level of activity.  If you imagine getting to a state where all of those 10,000 people are sharing / posting / commenting, it becomes a torrent of inundation and the community probably dies or fragments into smaller "special interest groups" (effectively just smaller communities).

If your community is very small (say in the scale of a few dozen), maybe getting to 100 percent "engagement" results in a reasonable level of decipherable activity.


Another aspect of the "90-9-1" "rule" that I always find interesting is that the "90" actually itself has differentiation.  Stan and I have used the term a "join-only member".  They join the community at some point but literally pay no attention to it.  By contrast there are people that would fit more into the traditional "lurker" descriptor that at least pay attention and can get value from reading things in the community.  Because neither of these groups shows visible activity*, it is hard to know how that big chunk of people breaks up.  My suspicion is that at least a large number of the 90 are likely the "join-only" - so instead of "90-9-1", it might be better described as "70-20-9-1" where the 70% are the join-only members who literally contribute nothing, read nothing and are just a name on a membership list.

* My asterisk above on "visible activity" means that depending on the tool you use to support the community it may be possible to get a sense of readership (if you can have something like web analytics on it that captures unique visitors).  But not all tools provide that and when a tool supports email as an option to interact with a community (maybe on top of a web experience) you also lose visibility.


Great discussion, though.

Regards
Lee Romero


On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Bill Kaplan bill@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


nice

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 13:48


To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

 

Yes, and you should take the value equation out five levels – don’t just stop with the user, address these five levels: (apologies in advance to Don Kirkpatrick):

 

  • Level 1 – does the user find it useful and easy to use (satisfaction)
  • Level 2 – does the user feel their performance is enhanced because of it? (improvement in KSAs)
  • Level 3 – does the user’s boss see better performance from the user because of it (on the job behaviors)
  • Level 3 – is there positive business impact because of the improved performance? (business impact)
  • Level 5 -  is there an appreciable ROI on the original investment? (benefits/cost)

 

So, I would suggest that if you want to improve the “stickiness” of a KM tool/intervention (or reduce lurkers), then build a value chain that addresses these five levels

 

r/Chuck

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:11 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

 

Agree.  It also comes down to “value.”  Do people find value in investing their limited time in anything that does not add to their ability to be successful?  This “return on value” seems consistent in every client with whom we work.

Bill

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:07
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

 

It’s interesting…you have just hit on something that has troubled me greatly in my many years of working to build adoption of KM…we tend to want to make things more complicated, rather than working to make understanding and adoption easier.

 

So, to me (and please, no offense intended), it really doesn’t matter how many models there are to explain contribution, lurking, adoption, etc., the simple truth is whether or not the intended users are ACTUALLY USING whatever process, portal, or solution you developed for them.

 

At the end of the day, most of our discussions are around the “technology” – whether it’s a desktop, laptop, ipad, smart phone, most KM solutions today DO depend on technology. Unfortunately, most of it is not designed by users  - I see this every day, not only in the context of clients, but also in many of my own personal online interactions (as I am sure others in this group experience).

 

I think that we really only need to ask TWO questions of users: 1) is this ____ KM tool easy for you to use?; and, 2) is it useful to what you are trying to do? And, IMHO, both of these get to the heart of behavior, because if the answers to these are not “hell yeah” than we will not see the behavior to come back and use it again and again.

 

As you might guess, I’m a big fan of Occam’s Razor J

 

r/Chuck

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 9:20 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

 

I devote a considerable amount of space in my doctoral dissertation (http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=finance_etds) to the problem of "adoption" and some of the issues with trying to apply the TAM model to it.  Starting on page 16:

 

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

 

"ESNs also present problems for existing adoption models in the research literature, in part because of their blended nature due to the intersection of the groupware and social media trajectories discussed earlier. Attempts have been made to apply many different theories and models to explain social business adoption: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Task-Technology Fit Theory (TTF) and Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) (Zhang, 2010); Diffusion of Innovations (Cardon & Marshall, 2014); Technology-Organization Environment Theory (TOE) (Saldanha & Krishnan, 2012); Hedonic Theory (Holsapple & Wu, 2007); Representation Theory (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013); Social Presence Theory, Channel Expansion Theory, and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (S. A. Brown, Dennis, & Venkatesh, 2010); Transactive Memory Theory (Keskin & Taskin, 2013).

  

Because of this blended history, ESNs do not fit neatly into most of the more traditional models and frameworks because they have elements of adoption that are related to both business use and social activity. The groupware trajectory has behind it a long history of the study of traditional IT systems, where the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) has a strong hold. TAM argues that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are the primary driving forces for the adoption of new technology. Although well established, TAM is derived from the study of IT systems that were designed for a specific purpose. In most of these systems there is little flexibility in how they are used, and the purpose is often one that is necessary for some particular business process. In these cases, “adoption” is simply a matter of use or non-use. 

  

However, ESNs are often voluntary in the sense that business processes can be done without them. An employee or team might choose to use email, phone calls, or face-to-face meetings to collaborate, rather than the social platform. And as illustrated above, those employees who do use ESNs might choose to use them in a variety of ways, at different frequencies, and for a variety of purposes, some of which may not be directly business-related. As a counter to TAM, hedonic theory arising from research on social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter suggests that adoption is dependent on enjoyment and perceived critical mass (Harden, 2012; Sledgianowski & Kulviwat, 2009; van der Heijden, 2004). It is not difficult to imagine that perceived usefulness and enjoyment might both play key roles in the adoption of an ESN."






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






I go on in more detail, but in essence models such as TAM try to describe the adoption of a technology, but what most companies really want when deploying an ESN is the adoption of a behavior.  These are two very different things.

 

 





Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an ESN #WOL #ESN

 

nice

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 13:48
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

 

Yes, and you should take the value equation out five levels – don’t just stop with the user, address these five levels: (apologies in advance to Don Kirkpatrick):

 

  • Level 1 – does the user find it useful and easy to use (satisfaction)
  • Level 2 – does the user feel their performance is enhanced because of it? (improvement in KSAs)
  • Level 3 – does the user’s boss see better performance from the user because of it (on the job behaviors)
  • Level 3 – is there positive business impact because of the improved performance? (business impact)
  • Level 5 -  is there an appreciable ROI on the original investment? (benefits/cost)

 

So, I would suggest that if you want to improve the “stickiness” of a KM tool/intervention (or reduce lurkers), then build a value chain that addresses these five levels

 

r/Chuck

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:11 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

 

Agree.  It also comes down to “value.”  Do people find value in investing their limited time in anything that does not add to their ability to be successful?  This “return on value” seems consistent in every client with whom we work.

Bill

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:07
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

 

It’s interesting…you have just hit on something that has troubled me greatly in my many years of working to build adoption of KM…we tend to want to make things more complicated, rather than working to make understanding and adoption easier.

 

So, to me (and please, no offense intended), it really doesn’t matter how many models there are to explain contribution, lurking, adoption, etc., the simple truth is whether or not the intended users are ACTUALLY USING whatever process, portal, or solution you developed for them.

 

At the end of the day, most of our discussions are around the “technology” – whether it’s a desktop, laptop, ipad, smart phone, most KM solutions today DO depend on technology. Unfortunately, most of it is not designed by users  - I see this every day, not only in the context of clients, but also in many of my own personal online interactions (as I am sure others in this group experience).

 

I think that we really only need to ask TWO questions of users: 1) is this ____ KM tool easy for you to use?; and, 2) is it useful to what you are trying to do? And, IMHO, both of these get to the heart of behavior, because if the answers to these are not “hell yeah” than we will not see the behavior to come back and use it again and again.

 

As you might guess, I’m a big fan of Occam’s Razor J

 

r/Chuck

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 9:20 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

 

I devote a considerable amount of space in my doctoral dissertation (http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=finance_etds) to the problem of "adoption" and some of the issues with trying to apply the TAM model to it.  Starting on page 16:

 

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

 

"ESNs also present problems for existing adoption models in the research literature, in part because of their blended nature due to the intersection of the groupware and social media trajectories discussed earlier. Attempts have been made to apply many different theories and models to explain social business adoption: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Task-Technology Fit Theory (TTF) and Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) (Zhang, 2010); Diffusion of Innovations (Cardon & Marshall, 2014); Technology-Organization Environment Theory (TOE) (Saldanha & Krishnan, 2012); Hedonic Theory (Holsapple & Wu, 2007); Representation Theory (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013); Social Presence Theory, Channel Expansion Theory, and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (S. A. Brown, Dennis, & Venkatesh, 2010); Transactive Memory Theory (Keskin & Taskin, 2013).

  

Because of this blended history, ESNs do not fit neatly into most of the more traditional models and frameworks because they have elements of adoption that are related to both business use and social activity. The groupware trajectory has behind it a long history of the study of traditional IT systems, where the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) has a strong hold. TAM argues that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are the primary driving forces for the adoption of new technology. Although well established, TAM is derived from the study of IT systems that were designed for a specific purpose. In most of these systems there is little flexibility in how they are used, and the purpose is often one that is necessary for some particular business process. In these cases, “adoption” is simply a matter of use or non-use. 

  

However, ESNs are often voluntary in the sense that business processes can be done without them. An employee or team might choose to use email, phone calls, or face-to-face meetings to collaborate, rather than the social platform. And as illustrated above, those employees who do use ESNs might choose to use them in a variety of ways, at different frequencies, and for a variety of purposes, some of which may not be directly business-related. As a counter to TAM, hedonic theory arising from research on social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter suggests that adoption is dependent on enjoyment and perceived critical mass (Harden, 2012; Sledgianowski & Kulviwat, 2009; van der Heijden, 2004). It is not difficult to imagine that perceived usefulness and enjoyment might both play key roles in the adoption of an ESN."






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






I go on in more detail, but in essence models such as TAM try to describe the adoption of a technology, but what most companies really want when deploying an ESN is the adoption of a behavior.  These are two very different things.

 

 


Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an ESN #WOL #ESN

chuck georgo <chuck@...>
 

Yes, and you should take the value equation out five levels – don’t just stop with the user, address these five levels: (apologies in advance to Don Kirkpatrick):

 

  • Level 1 – does the user find it useful and easy to use (satisfaction)
  • Level 2 – does the user feel their performance is enhanced because of it? (improvement in KSAs)
  • Level 3 – does the user’s boss see better performance from the user because of it (on the job behaviors)
  • Level 3 – is there positive business impact because of the improved performance? (business impact)
  • Level 5 -  is there an appreciable ROI on the original investment? (benefits/cost)

 

So, I would suggest that if you want to improve the “stickiness” of a KM tool/intervention (or reduce lurkers), then build a value chain that addresses these five levels

 

r/Chuck

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:11 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

 

Agree.  It also comes down to “value.”  Do people find value in investing their limited time in anything that does not add to their ability to be successful?  This “return on value” seems consistent in every client with whom we work.

Bill

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:07
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

 

It’s interesting…you have just hit on something that has troubled me greatly in my many years of working to build adoption of KM…we tend to want to make things more complicated, rather than working to make understanding and adoption easier.

 

So, to me (and please, no offense intended), it really doesn’t matter how many models there are to explain contribution, lurking, adoption, etc., the simple truth is whether or not the intended users are ACTUALLY USING whatever process, portal, or solution you developed for them.

 

At the end of the day, most of our discussions are around the “technology” – whether it’s a desktop, laptop, ipad, smart phone, most KM solutions today DO depend on technology. Unfortunately, most of it is not designed by users  - I see this every day, not only in the context of clients, but also in many of my own personal online interactions (as I am sure others in this group experience).

 

I think that we really only need to ask TWO questions of users: 1) is this ____ KM tool easy for you to use?; and, 2) is it useful to what you are trying to do? And, IMHO, both of these get to the heart of behavior, because if the answers to these are not “hell yeah” than we will not see the behavior to come back and use it again and again.

 

As you might guess, I’m a big fan of Occam’s Razor J

 

r/Chuck

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 9:20 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an esn

 

 

I devote a considerable amount of space in my doctoral dissertation (http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=finance_etds) to the problem of "adoption" and some of the issues with trying to apply the TAM model to it.  Starting on page 16:

 

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

 

"ESNs also present problems for existing adoption models in the research literature, in part because of their blended nature due to the intersection of the groupware and social media trajectories discussed earlier. Attempts have been made to apply many different theories and models to explain social business adoption: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Task-Technology Fit Theory (TTF) and Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) (Zhang, 2010); Diffusion of Innovations (Cardon & Marshall, 2014); Technology-Organization Environment Theory (TOE) (Saldanha & Krishnan, 2012); Hedonic Theory (Holsapple & Wu, 2007); Representation Theory (Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013); Social Presence Theory, Channel Expansion Theory, and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (S. A. Brown, Dennis, & Venkatesh, 2010); Transactive Memory Theory (Keskin & Taskin, 2013).

  

Because of this blended history, ESNs do not fit neatly into most of the more traditional models and frameworks because they have elements of adoption that are related to both business use and social activity. The groupware trajectory has behind it a long history of the study of traditional IT systems, where the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) has a strong hold. TAM argues that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are the primary driving forces for the adoption of new technology. Although well established, TAM is derived from the study of IT systems that were designed for a specific purpose. In most of these systems there is little flexibility in how they are used, and the purpose is often one that is necessary for some particular business process. In these cases, “adoption” is simply a matter of use or non-use. 

  

However, ESNs are often voluntary in the sense that business processes can be done without them. An employee or team might choose to use email, phone calls, or face-to-face meetings to collaborate, rather than the social platform. And as illustrated above, those employees who do use ESNs might choose to use them in a variety of ways, at different frequencies, and for a variety of purposes, some of which may not be directly business-related. As a counter to TAM, hedonic theory arising from research on social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter suggests that adoption is dependent on enjoyment and perceived critical mass (Harden, 2012; Sledgianowski & Kulviwat, 2009; van der Heijden, 2004). It is not difficult to imagine that perceived usefulness and enjoyment might both play key roles in the adoption of an ESN."





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





I go on in more detail, but in essence models such as TAM try to describe the adoption of a technology, but what most companies really want when deploying an ESN is the adoption of a behavior.  These are two very different things.

 

 


Re: Is it possible to convert the 90 percent lurkers in an ESN #WOL #ESN

Nancy Dixon
 

I suggest there are many reasons for reading without posting to a community. A person may feel junior to others and feel that they have nothing to contribute as of yet but greatly benefit from reading. A person may be a part of another discipline and be interested in learning about this new discipline, but not be a practitioner in it. A person may be very busy with an initiative and have time to read, but not enough time to join in a conversation. A person may have not be well-versed in English and not want to embarrass him/herself. These seem legitimate reasons. 

I would not want to disparage people who have legitimate reasons by referring to them in negative terms, such as, "lurkers" or to insist, in anyway, that they "should" contribute.   

In some communities, I have worked with, the leader/facilitator takes a very active role in contacting members and after getting to know them personally, offers to help with any of the above issues that arise in the conversation, for example,  "Just give me a call and tell me what you want to say and I'll post it for you." or "I don't think that question is too simple, there are a lot of people in the community like you that are just getting started, and would benefit from questions like that."  The Leader/facilitator calling or emailing members individually is a time consuming task - but one that can reap large benefits. 

Nancy

 

 

   

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:25 AM, peterstaal157@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

A lot of the effort of communitmanagement goes into converting lurkers to regulars/leaders/active members. Even Working Out Loud is aimed at coverting a lot (if not all) of the employees to become contributors. In the words of John Stepper:


"Those contributions - sharing work that can be helpful to others -  are what the other 99% will be seeing. That social proof will help other people know what to do, and motivate yet more people to join circles, so the 1% becomes 2%, then 3%. (One company approaching their 100th Circle observed how Circle participants were using their social intranet: “Many of them we hadn’t seen before.”)"


Source: http://workingoutloud.com/blog//leveraging-the-1-rule


But is it possible at all to get a majority of people contributing to an esn/community? Or is it wasted time and energy to focus on lurkers and should we only focus on active participants? A discussion I had with Stan Garfield got me wondering (https://twitter.com/stangarfield/status/853988444170801152). Curious what you all think?

 


4361 - 4380 of 9601