Date   

Re: Advice on software for knowledge sharing #tools

Jonathan Norman
 

Wow, thanks, Susan. You are the second person to recommend Confluence. I am grateful for your fulsome response.


From: sikmleaders@... on behalf of Susan Ostreicher susan.ostreicher@... [sikmleaders]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 6:44:32 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Advice on software for knowledge sharing
 
 

Hi Jonathan, 

You've already said you tend to focus more on people than software. I also agree with Tom's points about not introducing software unless the process itself is strong, and about not being able to "drag and drop" solutions from one organization to another. 

Having said that, and in the spirit of just sharing a solution that we've used and found helpful: We use Confluence for internal documentation. Confluence is essentially a wiki, so while most of our documentation is maintained by a small group, it's also easy for any user to jump in and add or correct information, and easy for us as knowledge managers to monitor these changes. 

For knowledge capture, we're piloting a discussion board feature for peer-to-peer questions and answers. Users can post a new question by creating a new Confluence page from a simple template. Other users who are signed up for notifications receive an email with the question in it, and they can open the page to leave a comment. Since the discussion board is also on Confluence, it's easily searchable alongside the rest of our documentation. We're using page-level metadata to mark questions as resolved. We're also using internal links to show a list of related documentation on each discussion board post, and a list of related posts on each documentation page. The goal is to make it easier to get questions answered, easier to automatically create a record of those answers, and easier to see contextual information whether you're reading a post or reading our "official" documentation. 

It sounds like the question here is about how to share lessons learned. I'm guessing that means that lessons learned are documented after every project, regardless of whether someone is asking a question - so it would be more of a "push" situation, versus our "pull" situation. I think a wiki could still work in this scenario - you probably wouldn't want to send notifications for every new page, but you could still use simple templates to make it easy to add new pages, and metadata to make them easier to "mine" later on. Of course, if some of the stuff being captured isn't useful to begin with, then software probably won't solve that problem. And it would be good to clearly understand why knowledge is captured locally in spreadsheets and other mediums today. If that's where the rest of the work happens, then it might seem like an extra burden for users to go somewhere else to capture lessons learned. 

Hope this helps,
Susan

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:03 AM jonathan.norman@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

I was recently approached by one of the Major Projects Association members looking for advice. Personally, I tend to focus far more on the people - activities, events, processes for knowledge sharing, rather than the software but let me share the query they sent me.

I'd be very grateful for any advice on this. Here is his query:

"We don’t have a corporate solution for knowledge capture and re-use.  Although we do lessons learned, the data is captured locally in spreadsheets and other mediums, and hence cannot be easily shared.  A high degree of the stuff captured tends to be ‘what we learnt on this problem’, rather than being what did we learn that is transferable, and what would I pass-on as my legacy, or to the next incumbent.  Likewise, when starting the next project, the data tends to have been about a specific instance and not very helpful.  It would be helpful to be able to data mine for projects of a similar nature and find relevant lessons.

 

I’m probably just looking for the art of the possible at this stage to see what software packages other organisations use and find helpful. We have SAP and Oracle P6 as our major systems so is there anything of a similar robustness?"



Re: Advice on software for knowledge sharing #tools

Susan Ostreicher
 

Hi Jonathan, 

You've already said you tend to focus more on people than software. I also agree with Tom's points about not introducing software unless the process itself is strong, and about not being able to "drag and drop" solutions from one organization to another. 

Having said that, and in the spirit of just sharing a solution that we've used and found helpful: We use Confluence for internal documentation. Confluence is essentially a wiki, so while most of our documentation is maintained by a small group, it's also easy for any user to jump in and add or correct information, and easy for us as knowledge managers to monitor these changes. 

For knowledge capture, we're piloting a discussion board feature for peer-to-peer questions and answers. Users can post a new question by creating a new Confluence page from a simple template. Other users who are signed up for notifications receive an email with the question in it, and they can open the page to leave a comment. Since the discussion board is also on Confluence, it's easily searchable alongside the rest of our documentation. We're using page-level metadata to mark questions as resolved. We're also using internal links to show a list of related documentation on each discussion board post, and a list of related posts on each documentation page. The goal is to make it easier to get questions answered, easier to automatically create a record of those answers, and easier to see contextual information whether you're reading a post or reading our "official" documentation. 

It sounds like the question here is about how to share lessons learned. I'm guessing that means that lessons learned are documented after every project, regardless of whether someone is asking a question - so it would be more of a "push" situation, versus our "pull" situation. I think a wiki could still work in this scenario - you probably wouldn't want to send notifications for every new page, but you could still use simple templates to make it easy to add new pages, and metadata to make them easier to "mine" later on. Of course, if some of the stuff being captured isn't useful to begin with, then software probably won't solve that problem. And it would be good to clearly understand why knowledge is captured locally in spreadsheets and other mediums today. If that's where the rest of the work happens, then it might seem like an extra burden for users to go somewhere else to capture lessons learned. 

Hope this helps,
Susan

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:03 AM jonathan.norman@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

I was recently approached by one of the Major Projects Association members looking for advice. Personally, I tend to focus far more on the people - activities, events, processes for knowledge sharing, rather than the software but let me share the query they sent me.

I'd be very grateful for any advice on this. Here is his query:

"We don’t have a corporate solution for knowledge capture and re-use.  Although we do lessons learned, the data is captured locally in spreadsheets and other mediums, and hence cannot be easily shared.  A high degree of the stuff captured tends to be ‘what we learnt on this problem’, rather than being what did we learn that is transferable, and what would I pass-on as my legacy, or to the next incumbent.  Likewise, when starting the next project, the data tends to have been about a specific instance and not very helpful.  It would be helpful to be able to data mine for projects of a similar nature and find relevant lessons.

 

I’m probably just looking for the art of the possible at this stage to see what software packages other organisations use and find helpful. We have SAP and Oracle P6 as our major systems so is there anything of a similar robustness?"



July 2019 SIKM Call: Dave Snowden - Let's start to manage knowledge, not information #monthly-call

Stan Garfield
 
Edited

TO: SIKM Leaders Community

Today we held our 167th monthly call. Here are the details:

Thanks to Dave for presenting and to the members who participated in the conversation. Please continue the discussion by replying to this thread.


Re: Advice on software for knowledge sharing #tools

Douglas Weidner
 

Abdul,

As you have heard in this group and probably know by now, there are many processes and technologies for K Sharing, from repositories for sharing explicit (already codified) K and information, to some pretty sophisticated tacit K transfer processes and techniques.

But, as many have said in this group and we count as an essential, first principle/step: you must know and define your real/specific K sharing/transfer needs.

At the KM Institute, for explicit K we know everyone already has a repository of some sort. The issue is that many repositories are only marginally effective (61% find them ineffective). Typically, that failure is not a software issue, but rather an implementation issue. Many install such KM Systems with little regard for change management, and especially attention to a robust taxonomy.

Also at the KM Institute we have a keen interest in tacit K collaboration, mentoring, sharing and even continuity, especially in the face of retiring 'Baby Boomers', the frequent job rotation of Millennials, and especially for complex organizational processes. There are some proven, evidence-based ways to foster and substantially enrich collaboration in this KM sector. But, most of these solutions are primarily procedural, and many lack infusion of any robust enough, supporting technology.

We have been testing a new structured K collaboration/mentoring software and designing ways to integrate it into the proven tacit processes we teach.

It has some key discriminators for the K Age including: 1) mobile enabled, 2) gamification, and 3) performance oriented algorithms/artificial intelligence. I particularly like its concept of a 4) diagnostic dashboard and 5) control console, such that organizational executives can monitor and stimulate the amount and quality of collaboration in their organization.  

We'll soon inform KMers of our research results. 

Based on prior case studies and preliminary results, we expect the new technology to substantially improve tacit K collaboration with resultant, substantive personal and organizational performance increases.

Douglas Weidner
Exec Chairman, Chief CKM Instructor

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 1:14 AM Abdul Tharayil abdul.tharayil@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Well, straight to the point. We have used SharePoint 2013 & 365 versions and found it useful to a greater extent. However, it depends upon several factors and one of them is your intranet platform. For us, our intranet is on SharePoint and that makes it easier for integrating with other corporate Applications/Software (HR/PM) as well. Though I have not used, Oracle and SAP do have KM modules that could be utilised if that is fitting to your requirement. On the other hand if you need to decide on a platform, just google for check-list of items to be considered for KM platform/software, you will be able to find some, if not many. I had a checklist prepared a few years ago, incase l find it l shall fwd it to you,  if you think it would be of help.

Abdul Jaleel
Kuwait


Re: July 2019 SIKM Call: Dave Snowden - Let's start to manage knowledge, not information #monthly-call

Stan Garfield
 


Re: Advice on software for knowledge sharing #tools

Megha Gulati
 

Hello, you can try google suite as well which gives you more features to use like developing  a site, storing data in google drive and other tools like word, excel, ppt for a corporate site. The cross-linking process between site and drive are very user friendly - which means, multiple users can access a single link with the most updated file from the backend through a site and work on it.

You can migrate your data from MS excel to G-Excel which can be shared and at the same time (considering users have read-write access) can work on the file at the same time. Any changes in the file by the specific user will be visible to the other user during same time of access.


Re: Advice on software for knowledge sharing #tools

Abdul Jaleel
 

Well, straight to the point. We have used SharePoint 2013 & 365 versions and found it useful to a greater extent. However, it depends upon several factors and one of them is your intranet platform. For us, our intranet is on SharePoint and that makes it easier for integrating with other corporate Applications/Software (HR/PM) as well. Though I have not used, Oracle and SAP do have KM modules that could be utilised if that is fitting to your requirement. On the other hand if you need to decide on a platform, just google for check-list of items to be considered for KM platform/software, you will be able to find some, if not many. I had a checklist prepared a few years ago, incase l find it l shall fwd it to you,  if you think it would be of help.

Abdul Jaleel
Kuwait


July 2019 SIKM Call: Dave Snowden - Let's start to manage knowledge, not information #monthly-call

Stan Garfield
 

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

SIKM Leaders Community Monthly Call



Re: Advice on software for knowledge sharing #tools

tman9999@...
 

A couple of things to consider.

Short’s Law #1: You cannot automate that which you don’t do well manually.
In this case, you state you don’t have a corporate solution for K capture and re-use, and your org is interested in a software solution for same. You then state that the current approach on spreadsheets is deficient in several ways. Suggestion: challenge work teams or departments to figure out how to improve K sharing and leveraging lessons learned. Make it a competition. Until you crack this one, you don’t have anything to automate. A new software solution for K sharing will just get in the way.

Short’s Law # 2: Proposed changes should be cognitively consistent and culturally compatible.
Carefully review the deployed software, processes, procedures, norms, etc. already in use. What is already present? How is it used? What additional capabilities does it have that is not being used; or is being used, but not for K sharing?
There is no “KM in a Box” solution. KM and K Sharing are a melange of tools and behaviors and processes and policies, so the way one org does it will likely be unique to that org in ways that will make it difficult to “drag and drop” into another one. Your best bet is to leverage what you are already using; the behaviors and norms that are already in place; the tool sets that employees are already familiar with. You can build on these by creatively augmenting what people are already using; and not requiring them to do something they lack the skill or knowledge to do (cognitively consistent); and by not transgressing established behavioral or cultural norms (culturally compatible).


Advice on software for knowledge sharing #tools

Jonathan Norman
 

I was recently approached by one of the Major Projects Association members looking for advice. Personally, I tend to focus far more on the people - activities, events, processes for knowledge sharing, rather than the software but let me share the query they sent me.

I'd be very grateful for any advice on this. Here is his query:

"We don’t have a corporate solution for knowledge capture and re-use.  Although we do lessons learned, the data is captured locally in spreadsheets and other mediums, and hence cannot be easily shared.  A high degree of the stuff captured tends to be ‘what we learnt on this problem’, rather than being what did we learn that is transferable, and what would I pass-on as my legacy, or to the next incumbent.  Likewise, when starting the next project, the data tends to have been about a specific instance and not very helpful.  It would be helpful to be able to data mine for projects of a similar nature and find relevant lessons.

 

I’m probably just looking for the art of the possible at this stage to see what software packages other organisations use and find helpful. We have SAP and Oracle P6 as our major systems so is there anything of a similar robustness?"



Re: KM Organization structure, Team size for Professional services organization for a software product #governance #maturity

Vijayanandam VM
 

Thanks Stan for your thoughtful pointers

Appreciate your pointers. Have a wonderful evening ahead 

Thanks 
Vijay 


Re: KM Organization structure, Team size for Professional services organization for a software product #governance #maturity

Stan Garfield
 


Re: KM Reading Lists #books

Dennis Pearce
 

Here are some I didn't see on the list:

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:38 PM stangarfield@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

I just updated my list of Knowledge Management Books. If you have other books or reading lists you think I should add, please reply with links.


A longer list of books mentioned in my Profiles in Knowledge Series and earlier blog posts is also available. The two most recent articles in the series are:


KM Organization structure, Team size for Professional services organization for a software product #governance #maturity

Vijayanandam VM
 

Team


Good morning, afternoon and evening wherever you are :-)


I have moved back to Knowledge Management from leading the Software Delivery organization. 

   - Recently i have joined JDA Software supply chain major to lead their Global Knowledge Management practice. 

    - Few years i have lead Global KM for HP/HPE/Microfocus Software earlier, and due to reorg KM program was truncated in 2017. During that period we have shared our KM program learnings and successes in APQC and KMWorld for 2-3 years, and had opportunity to meet Stan in person multiple occasions then.


Good to connect with forum again. 


Quick query. In our current firm we are starting from Level-1 maturity (APQC mapping is good) to revamp existing KM program. What should be ideal team size for KM program, you have seen to enhance the maturity to Level -3 maturity over next couple of years.


Please share your experiences in 

1. Right team size and key roles for KM core team

2. Focus areas

3. Critical success factors

4. others 


Appreciate your guidance and support. 


Job Opening: Medtronic - Senior Knowledge Management Specialist #jobs

Stan Garfield
 

From Nathan Ahlstrom, Senior IT Program Manager | Knowledge Center, Medtronic


The Medtronic Knowledge Center is hiring a Senior Knowledge Management Specialist.  Come and join this high-performing, exceptional team!

 

http://m.rfer.us/MEDtjWutp


Re: 2019 Midwest KM Symposium #conferences

Derek Bostic
 

All - we will be closing our speaker proposals for 2019 Midwest KM Symposium at end of day Monday 6/24.  If you've considered but not yet submitted a proposal we encourage you to do so over the weekend.  The link for registration and speaker proposals is provided for reference.  Thanks on behalf of the Planning Team. 


Re: June 2019 SIKM Call: Kate Pugh - Conversational AI #conversation #AI #monthly-call

Brett Patron
 

Tom Short said: "
The corollary of this is: You cannot automate that which you don’t already do well manually..."

Wow..that resonated with me. I have a client that would never believe this even though it is a spot on observation.


From: sikmleaders@... on behalf of tman9999@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 7:08:16 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] June 18, 2019 SIKM Call: Kate Pugh on Conversational AI
 
 

Lee Romero asked about managing risk of inaccurate info provided by AI-enabled search.

Over the course of 30 years of observing the rapid evolution of business systems and introduction of new tech to support knowledge workers during my consulting work; and studying the evolution of technolgy eras across the millennia, I arrived at the following theorem:

The first use of any new technology generally includes applying it to improve or automate whatever was already being done manually.

The corollary of this is: You cannot automate that which you don’t already do well manually.

Internal combustion, electric motors, spreadsheets, Google Maps (remember AAA Trip Tiks??), photography, ERP, WorkDay...pick any one of these, and take a look at how they were initially applied when they first came on the scene. And then consider the myriad novel, unexpected ways in which they were put to use - often times far exceeding expectations that led to their rise in the first place.

And so it will be with AI. If we are worried about how AI-based agents used for info search might expose companies to greater risk due to inaccurate or superseded search results, the first place I’d look is how well these risks are being managed now in the existing “manual” environment, in which a knowledge worker evaluates the search results and applies experience and judgement to discern which results have merit and which do not.

To the degree that there is a high degree of variability in those results between different operators, the ability to “automate” it via AI may be challenging at best; or not yet possible at worst. If some searchers do it better than others, is it due to lack of training being developed? Or inability to develop effective training? If the latter, then how can we automate it with AI, if we still don’t know how to get uniform results from manual workers doing it once they’ve been properly trained? (See Short’s corollary above: you can’t automate that which you don’t do well manually!).

This may be a case of using AI initially to tease out and codify the algorithms and heuristics used by expert searchers in order to program the AI to do it. This recursive process could be facilitated via Machine Learning (ML); or manually through trial and error, via experts comparing their search results to the AI agents’ results, divining the sources of variance, and using that to “tune” the AI’s algorithms or heuristics. Rinse and repeat until the results reach a high enough level of fidelity so as to be considered within the limits of tolerable risk. (Remember when WikiPedia was still new? It took awhile before researchers were forced to accept that the error rate contained in Wikipedia had reached parity with the then-standard for general reference, The Encyclopedia Britannica).

So that’s my take on this question, which is an interesting one, to be sure. But one that is definitely not without precedents from which we can gain insights regarding how we might anticipate it to evolve.

Tom
TSC
Tom Short Consulting
San Francisco


Re: June 2019 SIKM Call: Kate Pugh - Conversational AI #conversation #AI #monthly-call

tman9999@...
 

Lee Romero asked about managing risk of inaccurate info provided by AI-enabled search.

Over the course of 30 years of observing the rapid evolution of business systems and introduction of new tech to support knowledge workers during my consulting work; and studying the evolution of technolgy eras across the millennia, I arrived at the following theorem:

The first use of any new technology generally includes applying it to improve or automate whatever was already being done manually.

The corollary of this is: You cannot automate that which you don’t already do well manually.

Internal combustion, electric motors, spreadsheets, Google Maps (remember AAA Trip Tiks??), photography, ERP, WorkDay...pick any one of these, and take a look at how they were initially applied when they first came on the scene. And then consider the myriad novel, unexpected ways in which they were put to use - often times far exceeding expectations that led to their rise in the first place.

And so it will be with AI. If we are worried about how AI-based agents used for info search might expose companies to greater risk due to inaccurate or superseded search results, the first place I’d look is how well these risks are being managed now in the existing “manual” environment, in which a knowledge worker evaluates the search results and applies experience and judgement to discern which results have merit and which do not.

To the degree that there is a high degree of variability in those results between different operators, the ability to “automate” it via AI may be challenging at best; or not yet possible at worst. If some searchers do it better than others, is it due to lack of training being developed? Or inability to develop effective training? If the latter, then how can we automate it with AI, if we still don’t know how to get uniform results from manual workers doing it once they’ve been properly trained? (See Short’s corollary above: you can’t automate that which you don’t do well manually!).

This may be a case of using AI initially to tease out and codify the algorithms and heuristics used by expert searchers in order to program the AI to do it. This recursive process could be facilitated via Machine Learning (ML); or manually through trial and error, via experts comparing their search results to the AI agents’ results, divining the sources of variance, and using that to “tune” the AI’s algorithms or heuristics. Rinse and repeat until the results reach a high enough level of fidelity so as to be considered within the limits of tolerable risk. (Remember when WikiPedia was still new? It took awhile before researchers were forced to accept that the error rate contained in Wikipedia had reached parity with the then-standard for general reference, The Encyclopedia Britannica).

So that’s my take on this question, which is an interesting one, to be sure. But one that is definitely not without precedents from which we can gain insights regarding how we might anticipate it to evolve.

Tom
TSC
Tom Short Consulting
San Francisco


June 2019 SIKM Call: Kate Pugh - Conversational AI #conversation #AI #monthly-call

Ray Sims
 

I thought of Kate's SIKM presentation of yesterday when I listened to

https://a16z.com/2019/06/19/history-and-future-of-machine-learning/ today.

 

Tom Mitchell (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tom/) outlines a compelling vision for Conversational Learning with our phone digital assistant.

 

Here is a two+ minute audio clip of this part of the conversation: https://www.airr.io/quote/5d0a83f98ef6251ceb44a2b1

 

Ray Sims

http://www.the12thchapter.com


Re: June 2019 SIKM Call: Kate Pugh - Conversational AI #conversation #AI #monthly-call

Lee Romero
 

Kate - Thanks for bringing up this question that'd I'd asked.

Another detail to share - like many large organizations, mine can be quite "risk averse" - beyond the "intelligent agent" context, it is something that (as I am the business owner of our enterprise search solution) I hear about in the vein of how we ensure that our users find authoritative content when they are looking for it - That is, when a user turns to our search and looks for some information related to a client engagement, if they find out-of-date or wrong information and make a decision based on that, we could open ourselves up to legal repercussions. 

That expectation does extend to intelligent agents.  If a user interacts with one and is given a wrong answer, that could be a significant problem.  

The "obvious" answer is ensuring your agent (or search) is only fed "correct" content, but that is in most practical situations not possible to guarantee.  And if you use external information with an intelligent agent (you mention this by way of using open source content, for example), you are opening yourself up to the possibility of using unvalidated information.

What have others done when faced with this challenge?

Regards
Lee Romero

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:31 AM Katrina Pugh katrinabpugh@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Hello, Stan and SIKM'ers
It was great to discuss "conversational AI" and "AI for conversation." Lee and Linda raised good questions, and I would love to hear others' thoughts:

1. Lee: How do we build trust when intelligent agents (chat bots) are imperfect? (I initiated the question about how we can underscore that we're all contributors to the bot's success, and see the complaints as opportunity for experimentation and engagement.  We become citizens!) 

2. Linda: How do we make sure that the AI-enabled conversation supports diversity, e.g., introverts? (Sierra added that there is more "space for reflection and return" in applications like Teams and Chat.)

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you!
Kate

Katrina Pugh
EY | Advisory Services | Digital, Data and Analytics Practice
Columbia University | Info and Knowledge Strategy Master's Program Faculty
Mobile 617-967-3910


On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:15 AM stangarfield@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

TO: SIKM Leaders Community

Today we held our 166th monthly call. Here are the details:

Thanks to Kate for presenting and to the many members who participated in the conversation. Please continue the discussion in the Yahoo! Group by replying to this thread.


Tweets and group chat comments

  • From Joe Raimondo: Elucidating SIKM Leaders session with Kate Pugh on Conversational AI
  • David Eddy mentioned the 90-9-1 Rule of Thumb. My article on this - Fact or Fiction? https://www.
  • Tom Barfield mentioned https://www.touchcast.com
  • From Vijayanandam V M: Kate, I have a use case in our enterprise to link to Conversational AI. "Decision making in organization moving from virtual meetings to Conversational chat apps like WhatsApp"



3461 - 3480 of 9974