|
US Workforce by Age Category
#HR-OD
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?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
|
|
|
|
Re: Big news: a new KM community in the Netherlands - let's share knowledge
#local
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
Big news: a new KM community in the Netherlands - let's share knowledge
#local
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:
The following community activities will be organized:
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
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
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
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
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) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
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 Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
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-----
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) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders Reply-To: SIKM Leaders
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-----
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
website: www.straitsknowledge.com weblog: www.greenchameleon.com twitter: @plambesg
Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
|
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
-----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. website: www.straitsknowledge.com
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
twitter: @plambesg
Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
|
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 Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
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) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
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-----
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
website: www.straitsknowledge.com weblog: www.greenchameleon.com twitter: @plambesg
Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Identification of Potential Business Value
#value
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
|
|
|
|
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
-----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
website: www.straitsknowledge.com
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
twitter: @plambesg
Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
|
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) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
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-----
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 website: www.straitsknowledge.com weblog: www.greenchameleon.com twitter: @plambesg Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
|
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
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
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
