Date   

US Workforce by Age Category #HR-OD

Robert L. Bogue
 
Edited

Friends – I was putting this together for a project that I’m working on and thought that you might find it interesting.  It looks like the working population has shifted to higher age brackets in the last six years.

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out it.

 


Re: Big news: a new KM community in the Netherlands - let's share knowledge #local

Miguel Cornejo
 

Hi there Jasper. Sounds interesting. Any further info?

As an old KM hand in the realm of (online) communities of practice, I’d like to be in the loop for news about this :-).

Best regards,

Miguel Cornejo



El 22 ago 2019, a las 11:05, jlavertu@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> escribió:

 

Dear KM enthusiasts, attention everybody, big news…

 

Recently, in the Netherlands there is a new initiative to set up a KM community for KM professionals.

The aim of this community is to share knowledge between KM professionals of different organizations and backgrounds, to address new (scientific) developments and learn from each other and each other's thoughts. The intention is to create a community for/with both academics and practitioners and to create a balance between different sectors (professional services, government, manufacturing, health, logistics, etc.)

 

The format of the community is as follows:

  • 3 to 4 times a year an event (physical) for community members
  • An online resource portal (yet to be set up)
  • University of Amsterdam will be hosting the events of the community 

The following community activities will be organized:

  • Knowledge insights (presentations with discussions)
    • New academic insights with practical relevance
    • Interesting cases from ‘the trenches’ where (new) solutions are applied, and evaluated, to complex challenges
  • Poster sessions
    • Existing challenges of community members are presented on A3 posters and the community provides feedback
  • Roundtables
    • Discussions on specific topics. A common problem definition is formulated and solution directions or action plan will be drafted. A taskforce (which can consist out of community members) will work with it to identify solutions
  • Peer support
    • Feedback of the community on a specific challenge of one of the community members by community members

 

The very first event will take place on September 26 at the Amsterdam Business School (part of the University of Amsterdam). The program for the first event includes a problem-solving poster-session and a presentation of Dr. P van Neerijnen about Organizational Adaptiveness & Knowledge Management.

 

Are you interested in this community? That’s great! Just send me a message.


Many thanks.

Jasper


Jasper Lavertu

Knowledge Management Specialist, Knowledge & Innovation

________________________________________

 

De Voogt Naval Architects B.V.

Feadship

Leidsevaart 574

2014 HT Haarlem

The Netherlands

 

Phone. +31(0)23 5247000

E-mail: jasperl@...

Mobile: +31612848900

URL: www.feadship.nl

________________________________________


Re: Big news: a new KM community in the Netherlands - let's share knowledge #local

Edwin K. Morrris
 

Now that is awesome!!





Edwin K. Morris


From: sikmleaders@... on behalf of Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 7:24:51 AM
To: sikmleaders@... ; jlavertu@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Big news: a new KM community in the Netherlands - let's share knowledge
 
 

Dear Jasper,

I would be interested in your community.

Douglas Weidner
Exec Chairman, Chief CKM Instructor

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 5:06 AM jlavertu@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Dear KM enthusiasts, attention everybody, big news…

 

Recently, in the Netherlands there is a new initiative to set up a KM community for KM professionals.

The aim of this community is to share knowledge between KM professionals of different organizations and backgrounds, to address new (scientific) developments and learn from each other and each other's thoughts. The intention is to create a community for/with both academics and practitioners and to create a balance between different sectors (professional services, government, manufacturing, health, logistics, etc.)

 

The format of the community is as follows:

  • 3 to 4 times a year an event (physical) for community members
  • An online resource portal (yet to be set up)
  • University of Amsterdam will be hosting the events of the community 

The following community activities will be organized:

  • Knowledge insights (presentations with discussions)
    • New academic insights with practical relevance
    • Interesting cases from ‘the trenches’ where (new) solutions are applied, and evaluated, to complex challenges
  • Poster sessions
    • Existing challenges of community members are presented on A3 posters and the community provides feedback
  • Roundtables
    • Discussions on specific topics. A common problem definition is formulated and solution directions or action plan will be drafted. A taskforce (which can consist out of community members) will work with it to identify solutions
  • Peer support
    • Feedback of the community on a specific challenge of one of the community members by community members

 

The very first event will take place on September 26 at the Amsterdam Business School (part of the University of Amsterdam). The program for the first event includes a problem-solving poster-session and a presentation of Dr. P van Neerijnen about Organizational Adaptiveness & Knowledge Management.

 

Are you interested in this community? That’s great! Just send me a message.


Many thanks.

Jasper


Jasper Lavertu

Knowledge Management Specialist, Knowledge & Innovation

________________________________________

 

De Voogt Naval Architects B.V.

Feadship

Leidsevaart 574

2014 HT Haarlem

The Netherlands

 

Phone. +31(0)23 5247000

E-mail: jasperl@...

Mobile: +31612848900

URL: www.feadship.nl

________________________________________


Re: Big news: a new KM community in the Netherlands - let's share knowledge #local

Douglas Weidner
 

Dear Jasper,

I would be interested in your community.

Douglas Weidner
Exec Chairman, Chief CKM Instructor

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 5:06 AM jlavertu@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Dear KM enthusiasts, attention everybody, big news…

 

Recently, in the Netherlands there is a new initiative to set up a KM community for KM professionals.

The aim of this community is to share knowledge between KM professionals of different organizations and backgrounds, to address new (scientific) developments and learn from each other and each other's thoughts. The intention is to create a community for/with both academics and practitioners and to create a balance between different sectors (professional services, government, manufacturing, health, logistics, etc.)

 

The format of the community is as follows:

  • 3 to 4 times a year an event (physical) for community members
  • An online resource portal (yet to be set up)
  • University of Amsterdam will be hosting the events of the community 

The following community activities will be organized:

  • Knowledge insights (presentations with discussions)
    • New academic insights with practical relevance
    • Interesting cases from ‘the trenches’ where (new) solutions are applied, and evaluated, to complex challenges
  • Poster sessions
    • Existing challenges of community members are presented on A3 posters and the community provides feedback
  • Roundtables
    • Discussions on specific topics. A common problem definition is formulated and solution directions or action plan will be drafted. A taskforce (which can consist out of community members) will work with it to identify solutions
  • Peer support
    • Feedback of the community on a specific challenge of one of the community members by community members

 

The very first event will take place on September 26 at the Amsterdam Business School (part of the University of Amsterdam). The program for the first event includes a problem-solving poster-session and a presentation of Dr. P van Neerijnen about Organizational Adaptiveness & Knowledge Management.

 

Are you interested in this community? That’s great! Just send me a message.


Many thanks.

Jasper


Jasper Lavertu

Knowledge Management Specialist, Knowledge & Innovation

________________________________________

 

De Voogt Naval Architects B.V.

Feadship

Leidsevaart 574

2014 HT Haarlem

The Netherlands

 

Phone. +31(0)23 5247000

E-mail: jasperl@...

Mobile: +31612848900

URL: www.feadship.nl

________________________________________


Big news: a new KM community in the Netherlands - let's share knowledge #local

Jasper Lavertu
 

Dear KM enthusiasts, attention everybody, big news…

 

Recently, in the Netherlands there is a new initiative to set up a KM community for KM professionals.

The aim of this community is to share knowledge between KM professionals of different organizations and backgrounds, to address new (scientific) developments and learn from each other and each other's thoughts. The intention is to create a community for/with both academics and practitioners and to create a balance between different sectors (professional services, government, manufacturing, health, logistics, etc.)

 

The format of the community is as follows:

  • 3 to 4 times a year an event (physical) for community members
  • An online resource portal (yet to be set up)
  • University of Amsterdam will be hosting the events of the community 

The following community activities will be organized:

  • Knowledge insights (presentations with discussions)
    • New academic insights with practical relevance
    • Interesting cases from ‘the trenches’ where (new) solutions are applied, and evaluated, to complex challenges
  • Poster sessions
    • Existing challenges of community members are presented on A3 posters and the community provides feedback
  • Roundtables
    • Discussions on specific topics. A common problem definition is formulated and solution directions or action plan will be drafted. A taskforce (which can consist out of community members) will work with it to identify solutions
  • Peer support
    • Feedback of the community on a specific challenge of one of the community members by community members

 

The very first event will take place on September 26 at the Amsterdam Business School (part of the University of Amsterdam). The program for the first event includes a problem-solving poster-session and a presentation of Dr. P van Neerijnen about Organizational Adaptiveness & Knowledge Management.

 

Are you interested in this community? That’s great! Just send me a message.


Many thanks.

Jasper


Jasper Lavertu

Knowledge Management Specialist, Knowledge & Innovation

________________________________________

 

De Voogt Naval Architects B.V.

Feadship

Leidsevaart 574

2014 HT Haarlem

The Netherlands

 

Phone. +31(0)23 5247000

E-mail: jasperl@...

Mobile: +31612848900

URL: www.feadship.nl

________________________________________


August 2019 SIKM Call: Tom Stewart - Service design, knowledge management, and the art of customer delight #monthly-call

Stan Garfield
 
Edited

TO: SIKM Leaders Community

Today we held our 168th monthly call. Here are the details:

Thanks to Tom for presenting, to Kate Pugh for her question, and to those who attended. Please continue the discussion by replying to this thread.


August 2019 SIKM Call: Tom Stewart - Service design, knowledge management, and the art of customer delight #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: Should we stay or should we go? #tools

Edwin K. Morrris
 

On that note research the privacy policy and how the data is monetized. 

Sent from my LG V40 ThinQ, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone

------ Original message------
From: jlavertu@... [sikmleaders]
Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2019 06:03
To: sikmleaders@...;
Cc:
Subject:[sikmleaders] Re: Should we stay or should we go?

 

The guy who founded Groups.io seems to be really passionate about online communities considering his history in this area, which is great! And also (more?) important, all Stan's priorities for a new platform are met. Even the likelihood of platform longevity might be higher than with FB Groups because, probably, at FB decisions to cut or continue functionalities like groups are made on different reasons (with more economic grounds) than at groups.io (but this might be a wrong assumption).


Anyway, I would prefer option 2. migrate to groups.io

Jasper


Re: Should we stay or should we go? #tools

Jasper Lavertu
 

The guy who founded Groups.io seems to be really passionate about online communities considering his history in this area, which is great! And also (more?) important, all Stan's priorities for a new platform are met. Even the likelihood of platform longevity might be higher than with FB Groups because, probably, at FB decisions to cut or continue functionalities like groups are made on different reasons (with more economic grounds) than at groups.io (but this might be a wrong assumption).

Anyway, I would prefer option 2. migrate to groups.io

Jasper


Re: Identification of Potential Business Value #value

Frank Guerino
 

Hi Murray,

 

That puts it in a very clear context.

 

Thanks.

--

Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner

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

Guerino1_Skype (S)

 

 

From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders
Date: Friday, August 16, 2019 at 2:35 PM
To: SIKM Leaders
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value

 

 

yes, a business case needs the numbers, the conditions under which it is operating and what it is proposing, and to make it readable and easily understood, several short value stories showing where and how the value comes.....murray

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders]
To: SIKM Leaders Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2019 7:37 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value

 

Hi Murray,

 

Understood.  So, it appears that based on your definition that a Value Story is (paraphrasing) “an explanation of how a value or other number was achieved,” a Business Case would include multiple value stories that explain how each of its conclusions were made.

 

My Best,


Frank

--

Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner

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

Guerino1_Skype (S)

 

 

From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders
Date: Friday, August 16, 2019 at 3:05 AM
To: SIKM Leaders
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value

 

 

agreed Frank but I'm not really talking about a business case.  There are many instances where you have to value something, for instance in doing a risk assessment assets are identified and valued, many times we use a value story or statement to briefly explain how we came up with the value of the asset.  A full BC is not needed or wanted, especially when you have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of assets (I did an inventory in 1999 where I had 600,000 + devices).  I use value stories embedded in analyses and other reports to explain how certain numbers are generated.  Basically when I say a value story I'm referring to a short paragraph that explains how a value or other number was generated.  I see a BC as something used at the project or program level to explain the reasoning and value for doing the project or program....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders]
To: SIKM Leaders
Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2019 6:23 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value

 

Hi Murray,

 

Something to consider as an extension to the concept of a “Story” is an actual “Business Case” with all its supporting details.

 

Companies like Amazon, Google, MS, and Apple all offer their employees the opportunity to pitch the value of their ideas/knowledge as fully developed business cases (BCs).  Each BC must be extremely detailed and vetted.  Users must understand competitive markets, cost of entry, Break Even Points, etc.  And, if brought to a committee, the company acts as a Venture Capital company that (if the idea is approved) invests in the BC, providing not just funding but staff and access to resources that allows the owner of the BC to “run with it.”

 

In summary, employees are thought to think of a BC as a far more developed and detailed Story (based on an internal company template) that has been more thoroughly vetted for a higher probability of successful outcome.

 

My Best,

 

Frank

--

Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner

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

Guerino1_Skype (S)

 

 

From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders Reply-To: SIKM Leaders
Date: Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 12:51 AM
To: SIKM Leaders
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value

 

 

Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so.  So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there.  I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on.  From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization.  The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values.  No one story fits all.  My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated..  I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context.  So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific.  If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex

Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so.  So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there.  I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on.  From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization.  The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values.  No one story fits all.  My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated.  I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context.  So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific.  If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value



Hi Robert

 

The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).

 

Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e..g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.

 

In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.

 

You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application..

 

Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered).

 

I hope that does not muddy the water over-much!

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383


Error! Filename not specified.

 

twitter: @plambesg

 

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 14 Aug 2019, at 11:06 PM, Robert Bogue rbogue@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

 

Friends –

 

It was great seeing so many folks last week in Cincinnati.  

 

I’m pondering a problem for a whitepaper I’m writing and I’d love folks thoughts on it.  The short version of the question is “How do you assess the potential business value of an information asset?”

 

The longer form is in the context of how we need to help to separate the wheat from the chaff so that we can keep the information is the most valuable and discard (through retention schedules) the information that we no longer need.

 

I’m thinking about some interesting challenges.  Anything that has been converted from implicit knowledge to explicit should be elevated because of the investment that was made – in other words someone felt like this was important enough to convert it into an explicit piece.  I’m not entirely sure that I could separate the explicit from the implicit at scale and would love ideas on how to do this.

 

Similarly, I was pondering video interviews.  Last week we discussed that uploading a video to Microsoft Stream will automatically generate closed captioning which improves it’s findability..  Between that and the ubiquity of cell phones that can shoot video, it’s a great way to capture knowledge and to make it findable.  However, I began pondering whether we should retain the video file for the same length of time as the captions.  Do they have the same value?  If the information is high value one would expect that it might be converted into an explicit knowledge asset.  If it’s of lower value, then perhaps the best answer is to connect with the person who has the knowledge – which can be done with just the transcript.  Thoughts?

 

I’d love to hear folks thoughts along this line as I try to clarify my thinking.

 

Thanks.

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Re: Identification of Potential Business Value #value

Murray Jennex
 

yes, a business case needs the numbers, the conditions under which it is operating and what it is proposing, and to make it readable and easily understood, several short value stories showing where and how the value comes.....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders]
To: SIKM Leaders
Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2019 7:37 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value



Hi Murray,
 
Understood.  So, it appears that based on your definition that a Value Story is (paraphrasing) “an explanation of how a value or other number was achieved,” a Business Case would include multiple value stories that explain how each of its conclusions were made.
 
My Best,

Frank
--
Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
Guerino1_Skype (S)
 
 
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders
Date: Friday, August 16, 2019 at 3:05 AM
To: SIKM Leaders
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value
 
 
agreed Frank but I'm not really talking about a business case.  There are many instances where you have to value something, for instance in doing a risk assessment assets are identified and valued, many times we use a value story or statement to briefly explain how we came up with the value of the asset.  A full BC is not needed or wanted, especially when you have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of assets (I did an inventory in 1999 where I had 600,000 + devices).  I use value stories embedded in analyses and other reports to explain how certain numbers are generated.  Basically when I say a value story I'm referring to a short paragraph that explains how a value or other number was generated.  I see a BC as something used at the project or program level to explain the reasoning and value for doing the project or program....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders]
To: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2019 6:23 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value
 
Hi Murray,
 
Something to consider as an extension to the concept of a “Story” is an actual “Business Case” with all its supporting details.
 
Companies like Amazon, Google, MS, and Apple all offer their employees the opportunity to pitch the value of their ideas/knowledge as fully developed business cases (BCs).  Each BC must be extremely detailed and vetted.  Users must understand competitive markets, cost of entry, Break Even Points, etc.  And, if brought to a committee, the company acts as a Venture Capital company that (if the idea is approved) invests in the BC, providing not just funding but staff and access to resources that allows the owner of the BC to “run with it.”
 
In summary, employees are thought to think of a BC as a far more developed and detailed Story (based on an internal company template) that has been more thoroughly vetted for a higher probability of successful outcome.
 
My Best,
 
Frank
--
Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it..com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
Guerino1_Skype (S)
 
 
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders
Date: Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 12:51 AM
To: SIKM Leaders
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value
 
 
Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so.  So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there.  I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on.  From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization.  The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values.  No one story fits all.  My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated..  I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context.  So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific.  If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex
Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so.  So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there.  I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on.  From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization.  The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values.  No one story fits all.  My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated.  I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context.  So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific.  If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value


Hi Robert
 
The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).
 
Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e..g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.
 
In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.
 
You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application..
 
Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered).
 
I hope that does not muddy the water over-much!
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

Error! Filename not specified.


twitter: @plambesg
 
Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
 
On 14 Aug 2019, at 11:06 PM, Robert Bogue rbogue@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 
 
Friends –
 
It was great seeing so many folks last week in Cincinnati.  
 
I’m pondering a problem for a whitepaper I’m writing and I’d love folks thoughts on it.  The short version of the question is “How do you assess the potential business value of an information asset?”
 
The longer form is in the context of how we need to help to separate the wheat from the chaff so that we can keep the information is the most valuable and discard (through retention schedules) the information that we no longer need.
 
I’m thinking about some interesting challenges.  Anything that has been converted from implicit knowledge to explicit should be elevated because of the investment that was made – in other words someone felt like this was important enough to convert it into an explicit piece.  I’m not entirely sure that I could separate the explicit from the implicit at scale and would love ideas on how to do this.
 
Similarly, I was pondering video interviews.  Last week we discussed that uploading a video to Microsoft Stream will automatically generate closed captioning which improves it’s findability..  Between that and the ubiquity of cell phones that can shoot video, it’s a great way to capture knowledge and to make it findable.  However, I began pondering whether we should retain the video file for the same length of time as the captions.  Do they have the same value?  If the information is high value one would expect that it might be converted into an explicit knowledge asset.  If it’s of lower value, then perhaps the best answer is to connect with the person who has the knowledge – which can be done with just the transcript.  Thoughts?
 
I’d love to hear folks thoughts along this line as I try to clarify my thinking.
 
Thanks.
 
Rob
 
-------------------
Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog
Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out it.
 
 
 
 
 
 



Re: Identification of Potential Business Value #value

Frank Guerino
 

Hi Murray,

 

Understood.  So, it appears that based on your definition that a Value Story is (paraphrasing) “an explanation of how a value or other number was achieved,” a Business Case would include multiple value stories that explain how each of its conclusions were made.

 

My Best,


Frank

--

Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner

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

Guerino1_Skype (S)

 

 

From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders
Date: Friday, August 16, 2019 at 3:05 AM
To: SIKM Leaders Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value

 

 

agreed Frank but I'm not really talking about a business case.  There are many instances where you have to value something, for instance in doing a risk assessment assets are identified and valued, many times we use a value story or statement to briefly explain how we came up with the value of the asset.  A full BC is not needed or wanted, especially when you have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of assets (I did an inventory in 1999 where I had 600,000 + devices).  I use value stories embedded in analyses and other reports to explain how certain numbers are generated.  Basically when I say a value story I'm referring to a short paragraph that explains how a value or other number was generated.  I see a BC as something used at the project or program level to explain the reasoning and value for doing the project or program....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders]
To: SIKM Leaders
Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2019 6:23 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value

 

Hi Murray,

 

Something to consider as an extension to the concept of a “Story” is an actual “Business Case” with all its supporting details.

 

Companies like Amazon, Google, MS, and Apple all offer their employees the opportunity to pitch the value of their ideas/knowledge as fully developed business cases (BCs).  Each BC must be extremely detailed and vetted.  Users must understand competitive markets, cost of entry, Break Even Points, etc.  And, if brought to a committee, the company acts as a Venture Capital company that (if the idea is approved) invests in the BC, providing not just funding but staff and access to resources that allows the owner of the BC to “run with it.”

 

In summary, employees are thought to think of a BC as a far more developed and detailed Story (based on an internal company template) that has been more thoroughly vetted for a higher probability of successful outcome.

 

My Best,

 

Frank

--

Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner

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

Guerino1_Skype (S)

 

 

From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders
Date: Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 12:51 AM
To: SIKM Leaders
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value

 

 

Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so.  So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there.  I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on.  From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization.  The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values.  No one story fits all.  My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated..  I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context.  So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific.  If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex

Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so.  So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there.  I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on.  From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization.  The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values.  No one story fits all.  My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated.  I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context.  So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific.  If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value



Hi Robert

 

The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).

 

Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e..g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.

 

In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.

 

You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application..

 

Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered).

 

I hope that does not muddy the water over-much!

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383


Error! Filename not specified.



twitter: @plambesg

 

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 14 Aug 2019, at 11:06 PM, Robert Bogue rbogue@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

 

Friends –

 

It was great seeing so many folks last week in Cincinnati.  

 

I’m pondering a problem for a whitepaper I’m writing and I’d love folks thoughts on it.  The short version of the question is “How do you assess the potential business value of an information asset?”

 

The longer form is in the context of how we need to help to separate the wheat from the chaff so that we can keep the information is the most valuable and discard (through retention schedules) the information that we no longer need.

 

I’m thinking about some interesting challenges.  Anything that has been converted from implicit knowledge to explicit should be elevated because of the investment that was made – in other words someone felt like this was important enough to convert it into an explicit piece.  I’m not entirely sure that I could separate the explicit from the implicit at scale and would love ideas on how to do this.

 

Similarly, I was pondering video interviews.  Last week we discussed that uploading a video to Microsoft Stream will automatically generate closed captioning which improves it’s findability.  Between that and the ubiquity of cell phones that can shoot video, it’s a great way to capture knowledge and to make it findable.  However, I began pondering whether we should retain the video file for the same length of time as the captions.  Do they have the same value?  If the information is high value one would expect that it might be converted into an explicit knowledge asset.  If it’s of lower value, then perhaps the best answer is to connect with the person who has the knowledge – which can be done with just the transcript.  Thoughts?

 

I’d love to hear folks thoughts along this line as I try to clarify my thinking.

 

Thanks.

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out it.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Re: Identification of Potential Business Value #value

Brett Patron
 

Paul posted: "While these frameworks are relevant to our understanding as KM practitioners, they are seldom useful for businesses.  They are, IMHO, a reference resource for us like arrows in our professional quiver. "

This is spot on.  Sometimes we in the Practitioner set get too enamored of our tools we forget who we are trying to help.

Additionally, I found that the tools some times take time to build which lends a sense of "too slow to be relevant" air to our consulting.  

In a recent KM deployment to Afghanistan, I discovered that showing off the tools/frameworks provided less value than showing where improvement/value/management of change could occur.  Later, when asked to "show my work" use of the framework tool helped provide additional context.

BJP/JECC-KM
@KMforDecision
Adventures in Armed Epistemology

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 09:36 Paul McDowall paul_mcdowall@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hi Robert,
You ask "How do you assess the potential business value of an information asset?"  In return I ask "How does the business determine the potential value/utility?"  What are key characteristics that the business utilizes to assess assets of importance, and to what level of importance?  Your question can too easily become a theoretical one which will prompt theoretical answers.  The most appropriate answer much be described in the context of the business, its issues, objectives and context. 

Having said that, I know the inherent temptation to want to develop a framework that could be applied/adapted to various contexts and numerous frameworks have been developed over the years as Patrick has described.  While these frameworks are relevant to our understanding as KM practitioners, they are seldom useful for businesses.  They are, IMHO, a reference resource for us like arrows in our professional quiver.  Which framework(s) are most relevant to this business' context?  How should I adapt the framework to this business' context and specific needs as expressed in the contract/assignment? 

There are many frameworks and models and they are all potentially useful, to us.  The perfect framework is the one that we help the specific business develop to suit their own needs.
Best
Paul


Re: Identification of Potential Business Value #value

Robert L. Bogue
 

Paul –

 

I am still processing Patrick’s response since that will require some research and additional thinking.  However, I wanted to respond to the framework question.

 

I’m not proposing that another framework be created.  Nor am I proposing that I recommend a particular existing framework.  I’m trying to create a broader point of view.  The truth is that all information has value and it has risk.  The information can lead us to the knowledge that we seek.  It can be a set of tracks that let us know where the knowledge has gone.  (i.e. who is walking around with it.)  At the same time, anything we retain has risk in terms of it’s unintended release (either through an accidental case of an employee sharing or via a data breach).  Information also has a risk-cost in the case of legal discovery.

 

In one of my other lives, I created a simple manual migration worksheet.  The tendency for users is to just “lift and shift” everything that we have.  We asked them to make the decision based on the time to move vs. the multiplication of the probability of reuse and the time/effort needed to recreate the information.  It’s a simple framework that’s designed to put a structure to an objective problem.  It’s the electronic equivalent of evaluating whether you should keep something in your garage.  If it’s cheap to replace and your probability of needing it is low – but the cost of storing it is high, then it should go.  It’s funny when I explain this simple thing to friends who have horded things in their garage to the point that they can’t park their cars in it, they feel empowered to become unencumbered by things that they felt like they couldn’t part with.  All the needed was a basic structure.

 

So I’m not looking for a mathematically rigorous solution to precise evaluation, I’m trying to think of a three part framework that allows people to make intelligent decisions.

 

For instance, I was considering how many versions of the document exist in the ECM.  The more versions there are the more likely that the information is valuable.  I was also thinking that Word keeps track of total editing time.  The more editing time the greater the probability that there’s something useful in there because the investment is greater.  Obviously, these aren’t universal thoughts that would be great for a fully-fledged framework – but perhaps they can put some structure around the idea that the more effort put into the information artifact the more likely it is that you should keep it.

 

Does that provide a better sense for what I’m thinking – and where I’m hoping to go?

 

Rob

 

P.S.  Patton said that “A good plan today is better than a perfect plan next week.”  I’m trying to not let great be the enemy of good (or useful.)

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out it.

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:37 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Identification of Potential Business Value

 

 

Hi Robert,

You ask "How do you assess the potential business value of an information asset?"  In return I ask "How does the business determine the potential value/utility?"  What are key characteristics that the business utilizes to assess assets of importance, and to what level of importance?  Your question can too easily become a theoretical one which will prompt theoretical answers.  The most appropriate answer much be described in the context of the business, its issues, objectives and context. 

 

Having said that, I know the inherent temptation to want to develop a framework that could be applied/adapted to various contexts and numerous frameworks have been developed over the years as Patrick has described.  While these frameworks are relevant to our understanding as KM practitioners, they are seldom useful for businesses.  They are, IMHO, a reference resource for us like arrows in our professional quiver.  Which framework(s) are most relevant to this business' context?  How should I adapt the framework to this business' context and specific needs as expressed in the contract/assignment? 

 

There are many frameworks and models and they are all potentially useful, to us.  The perfect framework is the one that we help the specific business develop to suit their own needs.

Best

Paul


Re: Identification of Potential Business Value #value

Murray Jennex
 

agreed Frank but I'm not really talking about a business case.  There are many instances where you have to value something, for instance in doing a risk assessment assets are identified and valued, many times we use a value story or statement to briefly explain how we came up with the value of the asset.  A full BC is not needed or wanted, especially when you have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of assets (I did an inventory in 1999 where I had 600,000 + devices).  I use value stories embedded in analyses and other reports to explain how certain numbers are generated.  Basically when I say a value story I'm referring to a short paragraph that explains how a value or other number was generated.  I see a BC as something used at the project or program level to explain the reasoning and value for doing the project or program....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders]
To: SIKM Leaders
Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2019 6:23 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value



Hi Murray,
 
Something to consider as an extension to the concept of a “Story” is an actual “Business Case” with all its supporting details.
 
Companies like Amazon, Google, MS, and Apple all offer their employees the opportunity to pitch the value of their ideas/knowledge as fully developed business cases (BCs).  Each BC must be extremely detailed and vetted.  Users must understand competitive markets, cost of entry, Break Even Points, etc.  And, if brought to a committee, the company acts as a Venture Capital company that (if the idea is approved) invests in the BC, providing not just funding but staff and access to resources that allows the owner of the BC to “run with it.”
 
In summary, employees are thought to think of a BC as a far more developed and detailed Story (based on an internal company template) that has been more thoroughly vetted for a higher probability of successful outcome.
 
My Best,
 
Frank
--
Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
Guerino1_Skype (S)
 
 
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders
Date: Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 12:51 AM
To: SIKM Leaders
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value
 
 
Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so.  So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there.  I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on.  From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization.  The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values.  No one story fits all.  My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated..  I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context.  So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific.  If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex
Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so.  So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there.  I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on.  From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization.  The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values.  No one story fits all.  My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated.  I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context.  So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific.  If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value


Hi Robert
 
The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).
 
Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e..g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.
 
In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.
 
You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application..
 
Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered).
 
I hope that does not muddy the water over-much!
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383




twitter: @plambesg


Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
 
On 14 Aug 2019, at 11:06 PM, Robert Bogue rbogue@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 
 
Friends –
 
It was great seeing so many folks last week in Cincinnati.  
 
I’m pondering a problem for a whitepaper I’m writing and I’d love folks thoughts on it.  The short version of the question is “How do you assess the potential business value of an information asset?”
 
The longer form is in the context of how we need to help to separate the wheat from the chaff so that we can keep the information is the most valuable and discard (through retention schedules) the information that we no longer need.
 
I’m thinking about some interesting challenges.  Anything that has been converted from implicit knowledge to explicit should be elevated because of the investment that was made – in other words someone felt like this was important enough to convert it into an explicit piece.  I’m not entirely sure that I could separate the explicit from the implicit at scale and would love ideas on how to do this.
 
Similarly, I was pondering video interviews.  Last week we discussed that uploading a video to Microsoft Stream will automatically generate closed captioning which improves it’s findability.  Between that and the ubiquity of cell phones that can shoot video, it’s a great way to capture knowledge and to make it findable.  However, I began pondering whether we should retain the video file for the same length of time as the captions.  Do they have the same value?  If the information is high value one would expect that it might be converted into an explicit knowledge asset.  If it’s of lower value, then perhaps the best answer is to connect with the person who has the knowledge – which can be done with just the transcript.  Thoughts?
 
I’d love to hear folks thoughts along this line as I try to clarify my thinking.
 
Thanks.
 
Rob
 
-------------------
Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog
Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out it.
 
 
 
 




Re: Identification of Potential Business Value #value

Frank Guerino
 

Hi Murray,

 

Something to consider as an extension to the concept of a “Story” is an actual “Business Case” with all its supporting details.

 

Companies like Amazon, Google, MS, and Apple all offer their employees the opportunity to pitch the value of their ideas/knowledge as fully developed business cases (BCs).  Each BC must be extremely detailed and vetted.  Users must understand competitive markets, cost of entry, Break Even Points, etc.  And, if brought to a committee, the company acts as a Venture Capital company that (if the idea is approved) invests in the BC, providing not just funding but staff and access to resources that allows the owner of the BC to “run with it.”

 

In summary, employees are thought to think of a BC as a far more developed and detailed Story (based on an internal company template) that has been more thoroughly vetted for a higher probability of successful outcome.

 

My Best,

 

Frank

--

Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner

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

Guerino1_Skype (S)

 

 

From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
Reply-To: SIKM Leaders
Date: Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 12:51 AM
To: SIKM Leaders
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value

 

 

Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so.  So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there.  I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on.  From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization.  The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values.  No one story fits all.  My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated..  I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context.  So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific.  If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex

Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so.  So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there.  I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on.  From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization.  The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values.  No one story fits all.  My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated.  I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context.  So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific.  If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex



-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value



Hi Robert

 

The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).

 

Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e..g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.

 

In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.

 

You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application..

 

Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered).

 

I hope that does not muddy the water over-much!

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383





twitter: @plambesg



Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 14 Aug 2019, at 11:06 PM, Robert Bogue rbogue@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

 

Friends –

 

It was great seeing so many folks last week in Cincinnati.  

 

I’m pondering a problem for a whitepaper I’m writing and I’d love folks thoughts on it.  The short version of the question is “How do you assess the potential business value of an information asset?”

 

The longer form is in the context of how we need to help to separate the wheat from the chaff so that we can keep the information is the most valuable and discard (through retention schedules) the information that we no longer need.

 

I’m thinking about some interesting challenges.  Anything that has been converted from implicit knowledge to explicit should be elevated because of the investment that was made – in other words someone felt like this was important enough to convert it into an explicit piece.  I’m not entirely sure that I could separate the explicit from the implicit at scale and would love ideas on how to do this.

 

Similarly, I was pondering video interviews.  Last week we discussed that uploading a video to Microsoft Stream will automatically generate closed captioning which improves it’s findability.  Between that and the ubiquity of cell phones that can shoot video, it’s a great way to capture knowledge and to make it findable.  However, I began pondering whether we should retain the video file for the same length of time as the captions.  Do they have the same value?  If the information is high value one would expect that it might be converted into an explicit knowledge asset.  If it’s of lower value, then perhaps the best answer is to connect with the person who has the knowledge – which can be done with just the transcript.  Thoughts?

 

I’d love to hear folks thoughts along this line as I try to clarify my thinking.

 

Thanks.

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out it.

 

 

 

 


Re: Should we stay or should we go? #tools

Ann Haibach
 

The company I work for prohibits use of Yammer, but Groups.io seems to work.   


Re: Identification of Potential Business Value #value

Paul McDowall
 

Hi Robert,
You ask "How do you assess the potential business value of an information asset?"  In return I ask "How does the business determine the potential value/utility?"  What are key characteristics that the business utilizes to assess assets of importance, and to what level of importance?  Your question can too easily become a theoretical one which will prompt theoretical answers.  The most appropriate answer much be described in the context of the business, its issues, objectives and context. 

Having said that, I know the inherent temptation to want to develop a framework that could be applied/adapted to various contexts and numerous frameworks have been developed over the years as Patrick has described.  While these frameworks are relevant to our understanding as KM practitioners, they are seldom useful for businesses.  They are, IMHO, a reference resource for us like arrows in our professional quiver.  Which framework(s) are most relevant to this business' context?  How should I adapt the framework to this business' context and specific needs as expressed in the contract/assignment? 

There are many frameworks and models and they are all potentially useful, to us.  The perfect framework is the one that we help the specific business develop to suit their own needs.
Best
Paul


Creating MASK Knowledge Books using Articulate Storyline #knowledge-capture

Daan Boom
 

Creating MASK Knowledge Books using Articulate Storyline

https://webexplorations.com/2019/08/05/creating-mask-knowledge-books-using-articulate-storyline/

August 5, 2019peter.johnson, posted in Best Practices, Instructional Design

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) had the foresight to capture critical information from their experienced employees. They used a technique called MASK (Method for Analyzing and Structuring Knowledge) creating knowledge books for bituminous, concrete repair, and the engineering of bridges.

MASK Points of View

The end result of MASK is normally a PowerPoint organizing the text, images, and videos in a single, very large file. Historically MASK has been used for very proprietary information such as the French Atomic Energy Commission and the formulas and processes for KRAFT Foods. So, the size of the file was not as critical.

However, the MnDOT wanted to make their knowledge available to the inspectors and local engineers out in the field as well as on the MnDOT website. Each Knowledge Book averaged 300 slides and took up almost one gig of space. The PowerPoint files couldn’t be conveniently viewed on a phone or tablet and they weren’t accessible to people with disabilities.

We decided to convert the PowerPoint slides into a web-based presentation using Articulate Storyline 360. This not only met MnDOT’s requirements but added features such as interactivity and basic animations.

Here is a screen shot from the original Concrete Repair Knowledge Book:

Here is the same information using Articulate 360. (Click on the image to view the interactive page.)

Notice how the dense PowerPoint text was converted by chunking the content into two hot tabs, focusing the reader’s attention. Information common to both hot tabs can be easily displayed using the base layer.

Benefits of the Converted Knowledge Books

Here is a list of some of the benefits we’ve gained using Articulate Storyline:

  • Content is completely interactive and can be published on the web. (Published Storyline files are encrypted so changes cannot be maliciously made to the presentation.)
  • Content is responsive. It can be viewed on a smart phone, tablet, or desktop computer.
  • Content is accessible. Videos include closed captioning and graphics include alternative text for screen readers.
  • Animation can be used to demonstrate key principles.

Workflow Bonus

As each knowledge book was being converted we used Review 360 (part of the Storyline suite) to communicate any changes or modifications to each page. Content experts at MnDOT could view the current version of the knowledge book, using a hidden URL. Review 360 automatically made a screenshot of the page they were viewing. Even people who aren’t comfortable using new software found Review 360 easy to use.

There are two main screens in Review 360. Here is the main Review view:

This is the Feedback view showing the discussion thread for each edit:

Review 360 made the editing process smooth and efficient for both the content experts and the developer.


You can learn more about the MASK methodology at KRAFT Foods here.

The MnDOT Newsline February 2019 includes an article describing the knowledge books at MnDOT.

Mike Leegard created this presentation showing how MnDOT uses MASK to create their knowledge books


Re: Identification of Potential Business Value #value

Douglas Weidner
 

Patrick, 
Excellent contribution. I really appreciate the historical context.

Sadly, I have found, many of today's students don't want to hear 'history'.
In other words, in my humble opinion, it seems they really don't want to know.

Maybe they haven't been taught the need for such historical context, just as Murray's gold vs. water example - lacking context.

Douglas Weidner
Exec Chairman, Chief CKM Instructor


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:03 AM 'Arthur Shelley' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Great idea Stephen,

Great content for Real KM magazine - such insights deserve to be findable by more people (and have a URL for cross reference in later dialogue).

 

To reinforce the importance of context, I have a small fun activity that may be useful for others:

Ask your team/student/workgroup if they prefer a kilo of water or a kilo of gold.

 

The “natural reaction” of most is of course to choose the gold.

The smart ones ask where they are before they make their decision (if understand the context in which the choice is being made).

My answer to that question is you are lost in the middle of a vast desert.

The “cocky” ones still insist on the gold stating they would get out of the situation to become rich and other more conservatives ones shift their answer.

It is a great conversation starter about confidence, contextual knowledge in decision making and the ability to “bet your life” on complex situations.

Usually stimulates great storytelling as well (around “real” situations they have been in or observed with good and suboptimal outcomes).

This provides a conversational experience of a number of knowledge related interactions to provide solid learning outcomes in context.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne

Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

Earlier Books: The Organizational Zoo (2007) & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader (2009)

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au 

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/arthurshelley/

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Thursday, 15 August 2019 4:16 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Cc: Bruce Boyes <bruce@...>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value

 

 

Hi Patrick,

Would you mind if we polished this up slightly and published it on
RealKM under your byline? I think it's an extremely thoughtful
reflection that deserves more longevity and exposure :)

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 15/08/2019 11:36 am, Patrick Lambe plambe@...
[sikmleaders] wrote:
> The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge
> is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable
> in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor
> changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler
> in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).
>
> Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the
> challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent
> potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some
> kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM)
> movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems
> actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance
> of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while
> the core competencies movement (e.g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers)
> moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and
> looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The
> intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset
> accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has
> failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be
> widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations
> high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by
> its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.
>
> In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the
> most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and
> aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at
> the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM
> movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to
> the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with
> today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.
>
> You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of
> that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove
> potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications.
> Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the
> value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge
> versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application.
>
> Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest
> effort in converting something, I think the question should be less
> one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term
> utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how
> useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen
> volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the
> problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and
> priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge
> audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM
> formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a
> better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the
> need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately
> be numbered).

3381 - 3400 of 9974