Date   

Re: KM for small enterprises #KMers #resources

Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Hi - This is something that Patrick Lambe wrote nearly 2 decades ago - much of it is relevant: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6858/e5e00ba44e63f79e3db881fc341c53b84084.pdf?_ga=2.129532687.202948811.1587254434-2050014622.1587254434

On Saturday, 18 April 2020, 12:40:46 pm AEST, Deependra Tandukar <dt@...> wrote:





Hello SIKM members,

I am looking for best KM practices for small enterprises.

Please suggest some resources, I would be grateful.

Looking forward to hearing from you.Best regards,

 

Deependra Tandukar

HandKnots Nepal

http://HandKnots.com | FB | Twitter

Rug for Me

http://rugforme.com | http://explorug.com/rugforme Mob apps: Android | iOS _ A 'TEAM' is not a group of people who work together, rather it's a group of people who 'TRUST' each other.


Re: Generational Search vs. Browse Behaviors #research

Stephen Bounds
 

Hey David,

Microsoft seems to be doubling down on AI an graph discovery as an alternative to traditional search techniques:
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-search-blog/microsoft-search-bringing-intelligence-to-your-world-of/ba-p/960144

I remain skeptical of general purpose AI as a solution for this kind of problem. I feel like organisations that value timely discovery have to invest the time in building the processes and common knowledge necessary to enable it.

To the extent that AI may be a solution, I feel like natural language interfaces (AI chat) have a better long-term shot at success. Bots need context too!

What do you think?

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 19/04/2020 12:23 am, David Eddy wrote:

Matt - 

>
Google PageRank works OK in a hyperlinked environment
>

I deal with “Google behind the firewall.”  

Meaning: how to efficiently research the depths/maze of connections in the decades of operational software applications that are the firm’s (poorly documented) nervous system.

In many software environments the linkages between components is something of a challenge to chase automatically.

I look at the simplicity of explicit HTML links as cheating.  

Inside the firm’s firewall(s) & operational silos, explicit connections are largely not there.

There’s a solid reason for Google to drop their GSA (Google Search Appliance) back in 2016.  It simply does not work on much of the material inside a firm.

- David



Re: KM for small enterprises #KMers #resources

Nirmala Palaniappan
 

Hello Deependra,

Please take a look at this article I wrote a few months ago.
Do let me know if it is of interest to you/relevant to your situation.
Would be glad to discuss further.

Regards
Nirmala 

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 8:10 AM, Deependra Tandukar <dt@...> wrote:

Hello SIKM members,

I am looking for best KM practices for small enterprises.

Please suggest some resources, I would be grateful.

Looking forward to hearing from you.Best regards,

 

Deependra Tandukar

HandKnots Nepal

http://HandKnots.com | FB | Twitter

Rug for Me

http://rugforme.com | http://explorug.com/rugforme Mob apps: Android | iOS _ A 'TEAM' is not a group of people who work together, rather it's a group of people who 'TRUST' each other.

--
"The faithful see the invisible, believe the incredible and then receive the impossible" - Anonymous


Re: KM for small enterprises #KMers #resources

Dennis Pearce
 

Hi Deependra,

This is an observation from a sample of one (me) so might not be generalizable.  Over my career I went from working at IBM (300,000 employees) to Lexmark (15,000) to Igloo Software and now the Ounce of Prevention Fund (both around 350).  There seems to be an inverse relationship between formal systems and organization-wide collaboration.  IBM and Lexmark are international companies, so a lot of my time was spent on figuring out ways for employees who didn't know each other to connect.  At the Ounce, most people know each other and what they are doing, but there aren't very many formal systems so the work is more about getting everyone to use the same tools and processes.  

My experience has been that often the challenge with smaller organizations is finding content, because it could be scattered across hard drives, SharePoint, Dropbox, Google Docs, you name it -- whatever some individual decides works for them.  Of course any size organization could have any kind of problem because of their culture, but it seems to me that in general large organizations are more likely to have formal systems and repositories while struggling to connect employees, while the reverse is true for smaller organizations.

So I guess a question I would have for you in order to recommend resources is what challenges are you facing?  What problems are you trying to solve?


Re: Generational Search vs. Browse Behaviors #research

David Eddy
 

Matt - 

>
Google PageRank works OK in a hyperlinked environment
>

I deal with “Google behind the firewall.”  

Meaning: how to efficiently research the depths/maze of connections in the decades of operational software applications that are the firm’s (poorly documented) nervous system.

In many software environments the linkages between components is something of a challenge to chase automatically.

I look at the simplicity of explicit HTML links as cheating.  

Inside the firm’s firewall(s) & operational silos, explicit connections are largely not there.

There’s a solid reason for Google to drop their GSA (Google Search Appliance) back in 2016.  It simply does not work on much of the material inside a firm.

- David



KM for small enterprises #KMers #resources

 

Hello SIKM members,

I am looking for best KM practices for small enterprises.

Please suggest some resources, I would be grateful.

Looking forward to hearing from you.Best regards,

 

Deependra Tandukar

HandKnots Nepal

http://HandKnots.com | FB | Twitter

Rug for Me

http://rugforme.com | http://explorug.com/rugforme Mob apps: Android | iOS _ A 'TEAM' is not a group of people who work together, rather it's a group of people who 'TRUST' each other.


Re: Generational Search vs. Browse Behaviors #research

Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Hi Susan,

There's a lot going on in that first point!
- Because the public internet and private corporate information environments are so different, you can't simply take techniques that you in one and move them to the other - e.g. Google PageRank works OK in a hyperlinked environment (like the web). The enterprise environment has far fewer links so PageRank doesn't work nearly as well. Google Search Appliance did not use PageRank - it mostly relied on commonly-used relevance ranking algorithms.
- I would say that use cases (what people are trying to do) are also different - so the starting behaviours are also different.

The first two chapters of the book by White (esp. the section "Why can't our search be like Google?") go into this in a lot of detail and are well worth reading - including summaries of the research available.

Regards,

Matt

On Saturday, 18 April 2020, 11:28:05 am AEST, Susan Ostreicher <susan.ostreicher@...> wrote: 

Hi Matt, 

Thanks for the book and research recommendations - these are very helpful! 

I wondered if you could expand your first point. Do you mean that users prefer to act differently in the consumer internet vs. the enterprise? Or that they need to change their behavior because the two environments are so different? (Or something else?) Do you know of any research backing this up? 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:09 PM Matt Moore via groups.io <innotecture@...> wrote:
Hi Rosanna,

Here are my comments (apologies if I am telling you what you already know)
- The consumer internet and enterprise information environments are very different and what is observed in one does not necessarily apply in the other.
- In Australia, every organisation that I have worked in, enterprise search has been poorly implemented (altho to be fair, one place did it OK for a while). There are organisations that do this well but they are the exception.
-  My suspicion is that information foraging behaviours within organisations are less driven by age and more by the quality of the tools available. i.e. whether or not you use search is more dependent on whether the search actually works rather than whether you fit into any generational category.

The best resources on enterprise search are Martin White's 2015 book and the surveys from Findwise (which sadly they have discontinued).

A quick Google yields a fair bit of research on how "young people" use search vs browsing on the internet - e.g. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/young-adults-ux/

Regards,

Matt

On Saturday, 18 April 2020, 09:24:30 am AEST, Rosanna Stephens <rosannastephens@...> wrote:

Hello everyone,

I'm building an enterprise search strategy and am trying to prove or disprove the assumption that younger generations prefer search vs. browse in a consumer and enterprise information search context. I've attempted to research this lightly through our internal resources and am mostly finding content related to marketers or very old research. Is anyone aware of recent research on this topic that you could point me to, or is anyone currently conducting research here?

Thank you!
Rosanna Stephens





Re: Generational Search vs. Browse Behaviors #research

Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Rosanna 

I’m sceptical that anything short of a very large scale highly controlled trial would provide any clear answers (and those are blue moon events in our field unfortunately). There are too many confounding factors, including the users’ familiarity with the domain, the relative heterogeneity/homogeneity of the content, the relative heterogeneity/homogeneity of the user communities, the relative stability of the vocabulary associated with the domain (is it a stable technical language or does the language of the domain contain lots of ambiguity, fluidity, synonyms)? All of these factors tend to nudge people towards or away from vocab-based search or structure-based browse.

As Matt points out also, users’ prior experience of the browse/search experience also influences attitudes and preferences. “We want the Google experience” is a common expressed preference but it is usually uninformed by what it takes to create that experience in search, and of how that “under the hood” effort and capability almost never translates into the enterprise. So even an expressed preference is often not actionable, because the context from which the preference comes is not translatable.

By “very large scale highly controlled trial” I doubt anything short of a large enterprise scale trial with hundreds of thousands of people working off different versions of the same environment would actually produce meaningful results. Anything short of that is going to be opinion, based on flimsy anecdotal evidence and usually not accounting for the confounding factors.

We’re much better off with an inductive approach, starting with our specific audience(s), looking at their current environment using references such as those Matt describes, getting opinions, and seeking to make tangible improvements. I personally think (warning: opinion) generational factors count for very little, but nature of the content and its associated language, working context, and satisfaction with current environment count for a lot.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 18 Apr 2020, at 8:09 AM, Matt Moore via groups.io <innotecture@...> wrote:

Hi Rosanna,

Here are my comments (apologies if I am telling you what you already know)
- The consumer internet and enterprise information environments are very different and what is observed in one does not necessarily apply in the other.
- In Australia, every organisation that I have worked in, enterprise search has been poorly implemented (altho to be fair, one place did it OK for a while). There are organisations that do this well but they are the exception.
-  My suspicion is that information foraging behaviours within organisations are less driven by age and more by the quality of the tools available. i.e. whether or not you use search is more dependent on whether the search actually works rather than whether you fit into any generational category.

The best resources on enterprise search are Martin White's 2015 book and the surveys from Findwise (which sadly they have discontinued).

A quick Google yields a fair bit of research on how "young people" use search vs browsing on the internet - e.g. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/young-adults-ux/

Regards,

Matt

On Saturday, 18 April 2020, 09:24:30 am AEST, Rosanna Stephens <rosannastephens@...> wrote:

Hello everyone,

I'm building an enterprise search strategy and am trying to prove or disprove the assumption that younger generations prefer search vs. browse in a consumer and enterprise information search context. I've attempted to research this lightly through our internal resources and am mostly finding content related to marketers or very old research. Is anyone aware of recent research on this topic that you could point me to, or is anyone currently conducting research here?

Thank you!
Rosanna Stephens






Re: Generational Search vs. Browse Behaviors #research

Susan Ostreicher
 

Hi Matt, 

Thanks for the book and research recommendations - these are very helpful! 

I wondered if you could expand your first point. Do you mean that users prefer to act differently in the consumer internet vs. the enterprise? Or that they need to change their behavior because the two environments are so different? (Or something else?) Do you know of any research backing this up? 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:09 PM Matt Moore via groups.io <innotecture=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Hi Rosanna,

Here are my comments (apologies if I am telling you what you already know)
- The consumer internet and enterprise information environments are very different and what is observed in one does not necessarily apply in the other.
- In Australia, every organisation that I have worked in, enterprise search has been poorly implemented (altho to be fair, one place did it OK for a while). There are organisations that do this well but they are the exception.
-  My suspicion is that information foraging behaviours within organisations are less driven by age and more by the quality of the tools available. i.e. whether or not you use search is more dependent on whether the search actually works rather than whether you fit into any generational category.

The best resources on enterprise search are Martin White's 2015 book and the surveys from Findwise (which sadly they have discontinued).

A quick Google yields a fair bit of research on how "young people" use search vs browsing on the internet - e.g. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/young-adults-ux/

Regards,

Matt

On Saturday, 18 April 2020, 09:24:30 am AEST, Rosanna Stephens <rosannastephens@...> wrote:

Hello everyone,

I'm building an enterprise search strategy and am trying to prove or disprove the assumption that younger generations prefer search vs. browse in a consumer and enterprise information search context. I've attempted to research this lightly through our internal resources and am mostly finding content related to marketers or very old research. Is anyone aware of recent research on this topic that you could point me to, or is anyone currently conducting research here?

Thank you!
Rosanna Stephens





Re: Generational Search vs. Browse Behaviors #research

Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Hi Rosanna,

Here are my comments (apologies if I am telling you what you already know)
- The consumer internet and enterprise information environments are very different and what is observed in one does not necessarily apply in the other.
- In Australia, every organisation that I have worked in, enterprise search has been poorly implemented (altho to be fair, one place did it OK for a while). There are organisations that do this well but they are the exception.
-  My suspicion is that information foraging behaviours within organisations are less driven by age and more by the quality of the tools available. i.e. whether or not you use search is more dependent on whether the search actually works rather than whether you fit into any generational category.

The best resources on enterprise search are Martin White's 2015 book and the surveys from Findwise (which sadly they have discontinued).

A quick Google yields a fair bit of research on how "young people" use search vs browsing on the internet - e.g. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/young-adults-ux/

Regards,

Matt

On Saturday, 18 April 2020, 09:24:30 am AEST, Rosanna Stephens <rosannastephens@...> wrote:

Hello everyone,

I'm building an enterprise search strategy and am trying to prove or disprove the assumption that younger generations prefer search vs. browse in a consumer and enterprise information search context. I've attempted to research this lightly through our internal resources and am mostly finding content related to marketers or very old research. Is anyone aware of recent research on this topic that you could point me to, or is anyone currently conducting research here?

Thank you!
Rosanna Stephens


Re: Generational Search vs. Browse Behaviors #research

Daan Boom
 

Hi Rosanna:

Just received the attached in my box. Have not read it yet but it perhaps some of the questions you have on this subject.

Daan


On Apr 18, 2020, at 7:24 AM, Rosanna Stephens <rosannastephens@...> wrote:

Hello everyone,

I'm building an enterprise search strategy and am trying to prove or disprove the assumption that younger generations prefer search vs. browse in a consumer and enterprise information search context. I've attempted to research this lightly through our internal resources and am mostly finding content related to marketers or very old research. Is anyone aware of recent research on this topic that you could point me to, or is anyone currently conducting research here?

Thank you!
Rosanna Stephens


Generational Search vs. Browse Behaviors #research

 

Hello everyone,

I'm building an enterprise search strategy and am trying to prove or disprove the assumption that younger generations prefer search vs. browse in a consumer and enterprise information search context. I've attempted to research this lightly through our internal resources and am mostly finding content related to marketers or very old research. Is anyone aware of recent research on this topic that you could point me to, or is anyone currently conducting research here?

Thank you!
Rosanna Stephens


Re: Why virtual collaboration is different from remote working or home working #remote-work

Douglas Weidner
 

John,
Do you think there is enough global demand (if virtual) vs. essentially local demand if F2F,  to warrant  such a CKS Certification?

Fortunately, with virtual/hybrid, we don't have to pre-commit to a facility, and with your prior teaching and expertise, you don't have to commit to a rigorous, detailed lesson plan, until the course is populated with enough interest to make it viable.

Thoughts?

Douglas 

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 4:10 PM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Douglas, thanks for your kind words.

I agree that course designers should be thinking about how to move their content online. I believe, at this point, that the question is not if it can be as good as a classroom experience - I believe it can be much better if done correctly. So, I believe this to be true for KMI content as well. But again, per my last post, this requires the technology and techniques to be based on a cognitive model of learning, not a model of evaluation, communication, or a behavioral model of learning (which unfortunately is what most instructional designers have been taught).

Now that you have made me think about this, I would say that KMers are the meta-thinkers in the organization, who think about knowledge itself, and probably score high on the "Need for Cognition" profile, so would probably be the first to adapt to cognitive-based online learning.

Agreed, let's follow-up and go deeper.

All the best,
John Lewis, Ed.D.
John@...


On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:16 AM Douglas Weidner <douglas.weidner@...> wrote:
Thank you John.

As usual, an outstanding contribution.

I'll need to review your book again in order to thoughtfully respond.. 

Admittedly, I just skimmed your book when I got it because I wasn't into the design mode at the time.
Now, every trainer should reconsider their course design as many transition from F2F to virtual and in light of the major differences between them, but maybe not so at the very core, as you suggest.
I'd be interested in a Zoom discussion and so would KMI's Instructors. 

As an aside: Do you think there is now enough (online) demand for perfecting a hybrid (virtual with asynchronous collaboration) KM Institute certification in such techniques?

It could be in our Organizational Learning Competency Area and labeled:
Certified Knowledge Specialist - Organizational Learning (CKS - Organizational Learning), or even more specific.

Let's chat.

Douglas Weidner
KM Institute

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:44 PM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Hi Douglas,
If I understand your point (and question), online learning, using synchronous technologies, is now straight forward as it can somewhat mimic Face-to-Face interactions and current classroom course structures. But when mixing in asynchronous techniques and technologies, there are questions remaining for best practices.

With online and classroom learning, the assumed pedagogy should be explicitly stated as to underlying learning assumptions before moving to techniques. I think that is where you were going with your example of a learning approach known as "learn by doing." So, let's drill down into pedagogy before methodology.

I teach my master's class on Organizational Learning entirely online, and mainly using asynchronous techniques. I use the Story Thinking pedagogy, which shows that learning can occur by moving throughout an entire Story Thinking cycle, or learning can occur in the last half of the cycle where the answers are delivered instead of discovered. A Full-Cycle story lesson takes a learner through the entire pattern towards understanding, whereas Half-Pipe learning starts at the point where an answer has been determined, and now the student just needs to obtain this knowledge. So, a Full-Cycle story lesson requires that each lesson starts with learning questions in addition to stated learning objectives.

From Story Thinking, pg 90:
Most people know that Albert Einstein created a theory of relativity. But most people do not know that this theory came from his ability to formulate this question: “What would I see if I could ride on a beam of light?” Imagine signing up for a physics class, and before seeing the learning objectives (e.g. “You will be able to describe the theory of relativity”) that you see this learning question: “What would you see if you could ride on a beam of light?” Now I am curious to understand the answer, and also how we got from the question to the answer.

Learning questions engage the learner at a different point in the story pattern than learning outcome objectives. They engage at the state of curiosity instead of conviction. And they lead to content related to the importance of the question, and competing theories and ideas, before discussing answers and implementation implications of the answer.

In my Organizational Learning course, some example learning questions include:
• What is organizational learning and how is it different from individual learning?
• How must individuals change so that organizations can change?
• In the knowledge economy, why are business models different from learning models?
• How do organizations balance efficiency and creativity?

This approach engages the student at a state of Muse rather than Memorization. And it is important to understand before trying to answer questions related to online methods and technology, because the answer will be different if you want full-cycle versus half-pipe learning. As far as underlying assumptions, for me, the base operation is learning and epistemology, not knowledge. "All knowledge is just an answer to a question. We should teach questioning skills before knowledge." - J Lewis. Unfortunately, the current education system is run from evaluation models, not learning models, and is the reason I was glad to see you ask about a deeper discussion which necessarily took us beyond Bloom's Taxonomy, which will need to change in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

With some underlying assumptions of learning in mind, we can now ask what part of the story structure are you within as you consider synchronous and asynchronous techniques and technologies? I have found that I am able to "flip the classroom" so that instead of taking notes as I teach in a classroom, followed by homework with related exercises, now students prepare by reading the learning questions and objectives, reading related articles, and watching my recorded lesson which they can replay instead of trying to take notes in realtime. This means that when I get a question, it is not to repeat something so they can write it down, it is always a good question that has been thought out by the time we interact later via email or synchronous activities. The online discussion board also supports learner-to-learner collaboration, and participation is required for each lesson, since each student learns from other students, and also has to form and articulate their own questions and opinions, supporting their interaction and understanding.

Well, this is clearly expanding beyond an acceptable email length. Douglas, if you are actively redesigning course material and would like to discuss in more detail please let me know. Actually, I am moved by the response of the KM community to offer help and materials during these crazy times. And I have been wondering how I can best help as well. If there is interest in the KM community, I could schedule a Zoom discussion on this topic.

All the best,
John Lewis, Ed.D.
John@...
Author - Story Thinking: Transforming Organizations for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1088545858/

Free resources:
Podcast - Introduction to Story Thinking (20 min)
https://soundcloud.com/pioneer-ks/john-lewis-because-you-need-to-know-pioneer-knowledge-services
Virtual Knowledge Café - Story Thinking and Knowledge Sharing (24 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1mWCsrCbb4&feature=youtu.be


On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:45 PM Douglas Weidner <douglas.weidner@...> wrote:
Thanks Rachad,
You defined the assets and activities much better than I did. Thank you.

I assume for example--almost intuitively and hopefully correctly, that the substitution of a synchronous virtual format for F2F can be done with no sacrifice to efficacy - both efficiency - e.g., time and effectiveness - e.g., learning outcome. The recording advantages for later on-demand viewing, and other digital capabilities are a probable plus. We often say 'frosting on the cake.'

My concern is less the traditional validation/verification (often quizzing), but rather the alternative actual learning approach often called 'learn-by-doing.'  Probably more like your below 'group work activities'.
Knowledge validation and verification: this is where student is meant to demonstrate his/ her ability to reproduce the lesson content through a series of individual or group work activities. Real-time whiteboard applications, and online quizzes can support this process. Cavilam vichy can be a potential virtual tool for for validation and verification processes. 

But, my real question is without any preconceived notions (aka bias), as I'm committed to adding virtual for our traditional F2F and self-paced e-learning modes. But I am developing lesson plans and need to better understand timing and ultimate efficacy.concerning whether online, probably asynchronous exercises can be done with as much efficacy as the traditional F2F mode, including student (Learner-to-Learner) collaboration and Instructor critique and feedback.

Everyone agrees that it is possible to replace F2F/whiteboards with virtual, but no one seems to know which is better and by how much.

I can guess and validate by trial and error, or I can be smarter and base my design on evidence-based input...if anyone is analytical enough to drill down that far.

Cheers. Stay healthy,
Douglas Weidner
Chief CKM Instructor
KM Institute

 



On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Rachad Najjar <rachadbn@...> wrote:

Hi Doug, 

Much appreciated your note. 

Classroom learning is a great example to virtualize it, especially with the confinement period.

Let's start with defining the knowledge roles for the
virtual classroom activity. 

  • Knowledge roles/ actors in the context of classroom learning:
    • Knowledge producerthe teacher – originator of the lesson – who makes tacit knowledge explicit.
    • knowledge intermediarythe teacher assistant who prepares the lesson for reuse by eliciting it, indexing it and documenting it.
    • knowledge consumerthe student who retrieve the lesson content and seek to apply it.
Then what might be knowledge processes and supporting technologies in the virtual classroom (lecture & exercise) are:

  • Knowledge processes & supporting technologies in the context of virtual classroom learning:
    • Knowledge acquisition: the interaction between the teacher and the student leads to externalizing the teacher knowledge and internalizing it into the student mind. Synchronous video conferencing might be recommended for this process augmented with the ability to integrate digital illustration of human anatomy. For example, Human Anatomy Atlas could be a great digital resource to enrich the tacit – explicit learning experience.
    • Knowledge capture and documentation: making available the lesson session through asynchronous on-demand video tutorials. The knowledge intermediary (teacher assistant) may capture the session, organize and document the video repository and may attach additional resources. Google G Suite may present a possible candidate for the capture and documentation process.
    • Knowledge validation and verification: this is where student is meant to demonstrate his/ her ability to reproduce the lesson content through a series of individual or group work activities. Real-time whiteboard applications, and online quizzes can support this process. Cavilam vichy can be a potential virtual tool for for validation and verification processes. 


Thank you

Rachad 

 

 


Re: Why virtual collaboration is different from remote working or home working #remote-work

John Lewis
 

Douglas, thanks for your kind words.

I agree that course designers should be thinking about how to move their content online. I believe, at this point, that the question is not if it can be as good as a classroom experience - I believe it can be much better if done correctly. So, I believe this to be true for KMI content as well. But again, per my last post, this requires the technology and techniques to be based on a cognitive model of learning, not a model of evaluation, communication, or a behavioral model of learning (which unfortunately is what most instructional designers have been taught).

Now that you have made me think about this, I would say that KMers are the meta-thinkers in the organization, who think about knowledge itself, and probably score high on the "Need for Cognition" profile, so would probably be the first to adapt to cognitive-based online learning.

Agreed, let's follow-up and go deeper.

All the best,
John Lewis, Ed.D.
John@...


On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:16 AM Douglas Weidner <douglas.weidner@...> wrote:
Thank you John.

As usual, an outstanding contribution.

I'll need to review your book again in order to thoughtfully respond.. 

Admittedly, I just skimmed your book when I got it because I wasn't into the design mode at the time.
Now, every trainer should reconsider their course design as many transition from F2F to virtual and in light of the major differences between them, but maybe not so at the very core, as you suggest.
I'd be interested in a Zoom discussion and so would KMI's Instructors. 

As an aside: Do you think there is now enough (online) demand for perfecting a hybrid (virtual with asynchronous collaboration) KM Institute certification in such techniques?

It could be in our Organizational Learning Competency Area and labeled:
Certified Knowledge Specialist - Organizational Learning (CKS - Organizational Learning), or even more specific.

Let's chat.

Douglas Weidner
KM Institute

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:44 PM John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...> wrote:
Hi Douglas,
If I understand your point (and question), online learning, using synchronous technologies, is now straight forward as it can somewhat mimic Face-to-Face interactions and current classroom course structures. But when mixing in asynchronous techniques and technologies, there are questions remaining for best practices.

With online and classroom learning, the assumed pedagogy should be explicitly stated as to underlying learning assumptions before moving to techniques. I think that is where you were going with your example of a learning approach known as "learn by doing." So, let's drill down into pedagogy before methodology.

I teach my master's class on Organizational Learning entirely online, and mainly using asynchronous techniques. I use the Story Thinking pedagogy, which shows that learning can occur by moving throughout an entire Story Thinking cycle, or learning can occur in the last half of the cycle where the answers are delivered instead of discovered. A Full-Cycle story lesson takes a learner through the entire pattern towards understanding, whereas Half-Pipe learning starts at the point where an answer has been determined, and now the student just needs to obtain this knowledge. So, a Full-Cycle story lesson requires that each lesson starts with learning questions in addition to stated learning objectives.

From Story Thinking, pg 90:
Most people know that Albert Einstein created a theory of relativity. But most people do not know that this theory came from his ability to formulate this question: “What would I see if I could ride on a beam of light?” Imagine signing up for a physics class, and before seeing the learning objectives (e.g. “You will be able to describe the theory of relativity”) that you see this learning question: “What would you see if you could ride on a beam of light?” Now I am curious to understand the answer, and also how we got from the question to the answer.

Learning questions engage the learner at a different point in the story pattern than learning outcome objectives. They engage at the state of curiosity instead of conviction. And they lead to content related to the importance of the question, and competing theories and ideas, before discussing answers and implementation implications of the answer.

In my Organizational Learning course, some example learning questions include:
• What is organizational learning and how is it different from individual learning?
• How must individuals change so that organizations can change?
• In the knowledge economy, why are business models different from learning models?
• How do organizations balance efficiency and creativity?

This approach engages the student at a state of Muse rather than Memorization. And it is important to understand before trying to answer questions related to online methods and technology, because the answer will be different if you want full-cycle versus half-pipe learning. As far as underlying assumptions, for me, the base operation is learning and epistemology, not knowledge. "All knowledge is just an answer to a question. We should teach questioning skills before knowledge." - J Lewis. Unfortunately, the current education system is run from evaluation models, not learning models, and is the reason I was glad to see you ask about a deeper discussion which necessarily took us beyond Bloom's Taxonomy, which will need to change in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

With some underlying assumptions of learning in mind, we can now ask what part of the story structure are you within as you consider synchronous and asynchronous techniques and technologies? I have found that I am able to "flip the classroom" so that instead of taking notes as I teach in a classroom, followed by homework with related exercises, now students prepare by reading the learning questions and objectives, reading related articles, and watching my recorded lesson which they can replay instead of trying to take notes in realtime. This means that when I get a question, it is not to repeat something so they can write it down, it is always a good question that has been thought out by the time we interact later via email or synchronous activities. The online discussion board also supports learner-to-learner collaboration, and participation is required for each lesson, since each student learns from other students, and also has to form and articulate their own questions and opinions, supporting their interaction and understanding.

Well, this is clearly expanding beyond an acceptable email length. Douglas, if you are actively redesigning course material and would like to discuss in more detail please let me know. Actually, I am moved by the response of the KM community to offer help and materials during these crazy times. And I have been wondering how I can best help as well. If there is interest in the KM community, I could schedule a Zoom discussion on this topic.

All the best,
John Lewis, Ed.D.
John@...
Author - Story Thinking: Transforming Organizations for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1088545858/

Free resources:
Podcast - Introduction to Story Thinking (20 min)
https://soundcloud.com/pioneer-ks/john-lewis-because-you-need-to-know-pioneer-knowledge-services
Virtual Knowledge Café - Story Thinking and Knowledge Sharing (24 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1mWCsrCbb4&feature=youtu.be


On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:45 PM Douglas Weidner <douglas.weidner@...> wrote:
Thanks Rachad,
You defined the assets and activities much better than I did. Thank you.

I assume for example--almost intuitively and hopefully correctly, that the substitution of a synchronous virtual format for F2F can be done with no sacrifice to efficacy - both efficiency - e.g., time and effectiveness - e.g., learning outcome. The recording advantages for later on-demand viewing, and other digital capabilities are a probable plus. We often say 'frosting on the cake.'

My concern is less the traditional validation/verification (often quizzing), but rather the alternative actual learning approach often called 'learn-by-doing.'  Probably more like your below 'group work activities'.
Knowledge validation and verification: this is where student is meant to demonstrate his/ her ability to reproduce the lesson content through a series of individual or group work activities. Real-time whiteboard applications, and online quizzes can support this process. Cavilam vichy can be a potential virtual tool for for validation and verification processes. 

But, my real question is without any preconceived notions (aka bias), as I'm committed to adding virtual for our traditional F2F and self-paced e-learning modes. But I am developing lesson plans and need to better understand timing and ultimate efficacy.concerning whether online, probably asynchronous exercises can be done with as much efficacy as the traditional F2F mode, including student (Learner-to-Learner) collaboration and Instructor critique and feedback.

Everyone agrees that it is possible to replace F2F/whiteboards with virtual, but no one seems to know which is better and by how much.

I can guess and validate by trial and error, or I can be smarter and base my design on evidence-based input...if anyone is analytical enough to drill down that far.

Cheers. Stay healthy,
Douglas Weidner
Chief CKM Instructor
KM Institute

 



On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 3:04 PM Rachad Najjar <rachadbn@...> wrote:

Hi Doug, 

Much appreciated your note. 

Classroom learning is a great example to virtualize it, especially with the confinement period.

Let's start with defining the knowledge roles for the
virtual classroom activity. 

  • Knowledge roles/ actors in the context of classroom learning:
    • Knowledge producerthe teacher – originator of the lesson – who makes tacit knowledge explicit.
    • knowledge intermediarythe teacher assistant who prepares the lesson for reuse by eliciting it, indexing it and documenting it.
    • knowledge consumerthe student who retrieve the lesson content and seek to apply it.
Then what might be knowledge processes and supporting technologies in the virtual classroom (lecture & exercise) are:

  • Knowledge processes & supporting technologies in the context of virtual classroom learning:
    • Knowledge acquisition: the interaction between the teacher and the student leads to externalizing the teacher knowledge and internalizing it into the student mind. Synchronous video conferencing might be recommended for this process augmented with the ability to integrate digital illustration of human anatomy. For example, Human Anatomy Atlas could be a great digital resource to enrich the tacit – explicit learning experience.
    • Knowledge capture and documentation: making available the lesson session through asynchronous on-demand video tutorials. The knowledge intermediary (teacher assistant) may capture the session, organize and document the video repository and may attach additional resources. Google G Suite may present a possible candidate for the capture and documentation process.
    • Knowledge validation and verification: this is where student is meant to demonstrate his/ her ability to reproduce the lesson content through a series of individual or group work activities. Real-time whiteboard applications, and online quizzes can support this process. Cavilam vichy can be a potential virtual tool for for validation and verification processes. 


Thank you

Rachad 

 

 


Re: Knowledge recognition technologies #tools

Mila Malekolkalami
 

Bill and stephen thanks for your emails.

Stephen, thanks your email is really helpful.


On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:10 AM, Stephen Bounds
<km@...> wrote:

Hi Mila,

I'm not sure you'll find a comprehensive list of technologies for "knowledge recognition" per se, because the range of possible techniques that can be applied is so broad. Many tools also tend to be domain-specific rather than general in nature -- for example, in healthcare.

As per the Firestone and McElroy Decision Execution Cycle (itself derived from the Popper's Tetradic Schema) we may consider the process of knowledge recognition to have 3 broad components -- contextualising and recognising problems, identifying alternative solutions, and error elimination and selection.

Each of these areas can have knowledge tools deployed independently, although many technologies support two or all of these areas:

1. Contextualising and recognising problems
  • qualitative data analysis (eg NVivo, text mining)
  • quantitative data analysis (eg SPSS, R)
  • inference and auto-classification (eg semantic web, graph technology)
  • big data / AI insights (eg behaviour prediction, automated medical diagnosis)
2. Identifying alternative solutions
  • support facilitation (eg help desks, consulting)
  • topic-specific information repositories (eg intranets, knowledge bases)
  • natural language query interfaces (eg chatbots)
3. Error elimination and selection
  • triage / diagnostic / differential tools (eg MYCIN)
  • recommendation engines (eg Siri, YouTube, Netflix)

Hope this provides a useful starting point.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 16/04/2020 3:39 am, Mila Malekolkalami via groups.io wrote:
I need to identify different technologies in KM.
What technologies are used in different KM processes?

I have read Nick Milton's book, knowledge technologies. But i didn't find what I need.

For example, Orbital and Skillsoft are sample vendors in knowledge creation.

But I cant find any technologies that are used for recognition of knowledge.
I have to find these technologies used in organizations and compare them together.



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:54 PM, Stan Garfield
Hi, Mila.

Thanks for posting again!

Please say a bit more about your query.  What do you mean by knowledge recognition?  How are you planning to use the information you are seeking?

Regards,
Stan


Re: Knowledge recognition technologies #tools

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Mila,

I'm not sure you'll find a comprehensive list of technologies for "knowledge recognition" per se, because the range of possible techniques that can be applied is so broad. Many tools also tend to be domain-specific rather than general in nature -- for example, in healthcare.

As per the Firestone and McElroy Decision Execution Cycle (itself derived from the Popper's Tetradic Schema) we may consider the process of knowledge recognition to have 3 broad components -- contextualising and recognising problems, identifying alternative solutions, and error elimination and selection.

Each of these areas can have knowledge tools deployed independently, although many technologies support two or all of these areas:

1. Contextualising and recognising problems
  • qualitative data analysis (eg NVivo, text mining)
  • quantitative data analysis (eg SPSS, R)
  • inference and auto-classification (eg semantic web, graph technology)
  • big data / AI insights (eg behaviour prediction, automated medical diagnosis)
2. Identifying alternative solutions
  • support facilitation (eg help desks, consulting)
  • topic-specific information repositories (eg intranets, knowledge bases)
  • natural language query interfaces (eg chatbots)
3. Error elimination and selection
  • triage / diagnostic / differential tools (eg MYCIN)
  • recommendation engines (eg Siri, YouTube, Netflix)

Hope this provides a useful starting point.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 16/04/2020 3:39 am, Mila Malekolkalami via groups.io wrote:

I need to identify different technologies in KM.
What technologies are used in different KM processes?

I have read Nick Milton's book, knowledge technologies. But i didn't find what I need.

For example, Orbital and Skillsoft are sample vendors in knowledge creation.

But I cant find any technologies that are used for recognition of knowledge.
I have to find these technologies used in organizations and compare them together.



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:54 PM, Stan Garfield
Hi, Mila.

Thanks for posting again!

Please say a bit more about your query.  What do you mean by knowledge recognition?  How are you planning to use the information you are seeking?

Regards,
Stan


Re: Learning Not Blame -- “Inquiry” Not “Inquisition.” We Can Work With This in Getting Back to Some Form of Normal. #COVID-19

Murray Jennex
 

Good points Stephen and I agree, there may not be a right answer regardless of how much data you have and I'll add that there may also be many right answers!  The hardest thing I've had to learn as a engineer, manager, and then teacher is that there is almost always more than one right answer and just because I think one way is right doesn't make it so.  The teaching culture is one where I've had to learn that there are many approaches (especially once you get to the graduate level) and it is rare that any one approach is purely right or purely wrong, I have to evaluate them all to see the merit in each....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Apr 15, 2020 6:51 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Learning Not Blame -- “Inquiry” Not “Inquisition.” We Can Work With This in Getting Back to Some Form of Normal.

Nicely said Murray.
The deeper problem is that sometimes there literally isn't a "right" answer to be solved by more data.
I recently came across Benedetti's Puzzle, which I think is a nice illustration/metaphor. Despite the well-known "knowledge" that music intervals are defined as a set of perfect ratios (eg the C-G interval of a fifth is a 3:2 frequency ratio), applying this strictly to a melody will lead to a gradual move "off key". (This isn't just theoretical -- a capella choirs experience this.)
So cultures are faced with a subjective choice: to compromise and adopt an even-tempered scale, or to factor this melodic drift into musical performance? Different culture have chosen different solutions, and neither can be argued as "right" or "wrong" in their approach.
(I recommend the whole video if you want a fascinating 10 minute diversion to your day BTW.)
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 16/04/2020 5:10 am, Murray Jennex via groups.io wrote:
Anna, I truly appreciate your post as it reflects much of what I feel about this pandemic and about the overall approach we (humans) seem to be taking to argue among ourselves.  You are right, viruses are not racist or sexist, if the data shows that certain groups are suffering more than instead of arguing social factors we need to identify risk factors so the right questions are always why is one group reacting differently rather than blaming society for that groups problems.  

I also worry about people over relying on science and data. Since I'm working at home I've caught up on some reading and an interesting article I read condemned the idea that having more data will always make our decision making better.  The model argument is given enough data we can be absolutely sure on the prediction but intuition math says we will cannot know it all.  I've had to referee debates among friends and acquaintances about the Washington model being used to guide policy.  Models are best approximations of what we know now that we use to help us predict the future.  The more we learn the better the model.  The one fallacy of this is that life is not linear and predetermined.  Life evolves and it will change in ways we cannot predict and models will never be perfect.  What I'm getting to is that political arguments about following science are wrong when the science is based on imperfect models.  Scientists know this, politicians do not.  Scientists know that models help them understand what they know, and what they don't, and good scientists look at models as a recommender system, good advice but not always right.  This is where KM steps in, we take past knowledge and apply it, hopefully appropriately, to current situations.  This is also a valid path and suggests that what we should be doing is using data and experience to guide decision making but not as the decision maker.  This means there will always be some ambiguity and this is particularly true with crisis response.  Crisis response will never be perfect but it guides us to be the best we can.  This is why we need to not worry about blaming and instead focus on learning....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Anna Gene Jonassen <ajonassen@...>
To: SIKM <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Apr 15, 2020 9:34 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Learning Not Blame -- “Inquiry” Not “Inquisition.” We Can Work With This in Getting Back to Some Form of Normal.

This really resonated with me, and struck me as a better formed, more eloquent version of some of my swear-filled rants (after I encounter mass media articles ) that my fiance has had to endure as we've been sheltering in place together! Hah! These articles (I've generalized as I feel they are ubiquitous) feel shockingly tone deaf to the real issues I feel I see so clearly - instead of focusing on education and problem-solving, they focus on sensationalist, unnecessarily politicized headlines that detract from any forward momentum and erode our fleeting sense of global camaraderie (when have I ever felt so connected in experience to people in Wuhan or rural villages in southern Italy?) . Now is not the time for finger-pointing. Now is not the time to be bureaucratic. Now is not even the time to get frustrated or defeated about the things we cannot change (i.e. systemic issues - I think about articles from NY times about race-specific communities are disproportionally at risk for COVID-19 - nowhere is there mention of WHY they might be at greatest risk as an opportunity educate and reinforce shelter in place orders - I could go on...) It is appalling to me the a politician(s) would withhold critical funding from some of the only organizations that possess the knowledge to help us as a collective move forward.

So truly, now is the time for action. 

I work at a healthcare technology strategy & consulting firm as a knowledge manager - at a company that is laser-focused on trying to deliver intel / lessons learned on digital solutions that can be rapidly stood up to deal with the immediate crisis of the surge of patients, and the analysis required to move forward, and potentially repurpose lessons learned for the long haul (this part, naturally, is trickier, and we lack the luxury of retrospect and are relegated to speculation in a lot of cases but health systems can't afford to do anything less)...

Because our clients are health systems that are on the front lines, they are not embroiled, nor do they care, about the politicization of the pandemic (aside from how it is impacting funding relief and it has proven to have more strings attached than it should which is ugly business) - as they are dealing with being hit/put at risk and/or gutted financially from every angle - they still have to care for communities. I have seen beautiful examples where clients have swept past bureaucracy, perhaps in an act of desperation, to rapidly share learnings, bridge partnerships (ie. competitors), enlist unusual applications of technologies, and whether they like it or not, have to dedicate time and resources to planning ahead and anticipating the worst case scenarios. These strategies may be executed in a more hodgepodge fashion than they'd ever hope for (ie. financial modeling for residual surges of the virus during a slow recovery, planning for operations where they are down all non-clinical staff, figuring out ways to recoup revenue as millions of Americans lose insurance) - but it is amazing to see how quickly some of them have been able to innovate, all while being in crisis mode.

Forgive my long-winded and scattered reply..long story short, great piece you wrote!


Re: Learning Not Blame -- “Inquiry” Not “Inquisition.” We Can Work With This in Getting Back to Some Form of Normal. #COVID-19

Stephen Bounds
 

Nicely said Murray.

The deeper problem is that sometimes there literally isn't a "right" answer to be solved by more data.

I recently came across Benedetti's Puzzle, which I think is a nice illustration/metaphor. Despite the well-known "knowledge" that music intervals are defined as a set of perfect ratios (eg the C-G interval of a fifth is a 3:2 frequency ratio), applying this strictly to a melody will lead to a gradual move "off key". (This isn't just theoretical -- a capella choirs experience this.)

So cultures are faced with a subjective choice: to compromise and adopt an even-tempered scale, or to factor this melodic drift into musical performance? Different culture have chosen different solutions, and neither can be argued as "right" or "wrong" in their approach.

(I recommend the whole video if you want a fascinating 10 minute diversion to your day BTW.)

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 16/04/2020 5:10 am, Murray Jennex via groups.io wrote:

Anna, I truly appreciate your post as it reflects much of what I feel about this pandemic and about the overall approach we (humans) seem to be taking to argue among ourselves.  You are right, viruses are not racist or sexist, if the data shows that certain groups are suffering more than instead of arguing social factors we need to identify risk factors so the right questions are always why is one group reacting differently rather than blaming society for that groups problems.  

I also worry about people over relying on science and data. Since I'm working at home I've caught up on some reading and an interesting article I read condemned the idea that having more data will always make our decision making better.  The model argument is given enough data we can be absolutely sure on the prediction but intuition math says we will cannot know it all.  I've had to referee debates among friends and acquaintances about the Washington model being used to guide policy.  Models are best approximations of what we know now that we use to help us predict the future.  The more we learn the better the model.  The one fallacy of this is that life is not linear and predetermined.  Life evolves and it will change in ways we cannot predict and models will never be perfect.  What I'm getting to is that political arguments about following science are wrong when the science is based on imperfect models.  Scientists know this, politicians do not.  Scientists know that models help them understand what they know, and what they don't, and good scientists look at models as a recommender system, good advice but not always right.  This is where KM steps in, we take past knowledge and apply it, hopefully appropriately, to current situations.  This is also a valid path and suggests that what we should be doing is using data and experience to guide decision making but not as the decision maker.  This means there will always be some ambiguity and this is particularly true with crisis response.  Crisis response will never be perfect but it guides us to be the best we can.  This is why we need to not worry about blaming and instead focus on learning....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Anna Gene Jonassen <ajonassen@...>
To: SIKM <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Apr 15, 2020 9:34 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Learning Not Blame -- “Inquiry” Not “Inquisition.” We Can Work With This in Getting Back to Some Form of Normal.

This really resonated with me, and struck me as a better formed, more eloquent version of some of my swear-filled rants (after I encounter mass media articles ) that my fiance has had to endure as we've been sheltering in place together! Hah! These articles (I've generalized as I feel they are ubiquitous) feel shockingly tone deaf to the real issues I feel I see so clearly - instead of focusing on education and problem-solving, they focus on sensationalist, unnecessarily politicized headlines that detract from any forward momentum and erode our fleeting sense of global camaraderie (when have I ever felt so connected in experience to people in Wuhan or rural villages in southern Italy?) . Now is not the time for finger-pointing. Now is not the time to be bureaucratic. Now is not even the time to get frustrated or defeated about the things we cannot change (i.e. systemic issues - I think about articles from NY times about race-specific communities are disproportionally at risk for COVID-19 - nowhere is there mention of WHY they might be at greatest risk as an opportunity educate and reinforce shelter in place orders - I could go on...) It is appalling to me the a politician(s) would withhold critical funding from some of the only organizations that possess the knowledge to help us as a collective move forward.

So truly, now is the time for action. 

I work at a healthcare technology strategy & consulting firm as a knowledge manager - at a company that is laser-focused on trying to deliver intel / lessons learned on digital solutions that can be rapidly stood up to deal with the immediate crisis of the surge of patients, and the analysis required to move forward, and potentially repurpose lessons learned for the long haul (this part, naturally, is trickier, and we lack the luxury of retrospect and are relegated to speculation in a lot of cases but health systems can't afford to do anything less)...

Because our clients are health systems that are on the front lines, they are not embroiled, nor do they care, about the politicization of the pandemic (aside from how it is impacting funding relief and it has proven to have more strings attached than it should which is ugly business) - as they are dealing with being hit/put at risk and/or gutted financially from every angle - they still have to care for communities. I have seen beautiful examples where clients have swept past bureaucracy, perhaps in an act of desperation, to rapidly share learnings, bridge partnerships (ie. competitors), enlist unusual applications of technologies, and whether they like it or not, have to dedicate time and resources to planning ahead and anticipating the worst case scenarios. These strategies may be executed in a more hodgepodge fashion than they'd ever hope for (ie. financial modeling for residual surges of the virus during a slow recovery, planning for operations where they are down all non-clinical staff, figuring out ways to recoup revenue as millions of Americans lose insurance) - but it is amazing to see how quickly some of them have been able to innovate, all while being in crisis mode.

Forgive my long-winded and scattered reply..long story short, great piece you wrote!


Re: Learning Not Blame -- “Inquiry” Not “Inquisition.” We Can Work With This in Getting Back to Some Form of Normal. #COVID-19

Murray Jennex
 

John, you mention the lead tool we in the nuclear world use to learn, root cause analysis.  No determination of fault was made till root causes were identified and in almost all cases I participated in one of the root causes was organizational issues, such as failed chain of command, inadequate change reviews, poorly communicated expectations, poor training, etc.  I only recall one event that was attributed to someone intentionally doing something wrong.  On a global level you have Chernobyl as the main example where people did something wrong on purpose, then you have Fukushima where individuals did outstanding efforts and sacrifice to mitigate what was essentially an organizational fault.  For those wondering, TMI-2 was mostly a human performance issue in that systems were poorly designed from a human factors perspective and then procedures didn't counter the fog of crisis issue.  We had a saying that it was okay for a mistake to happen once, unforgivable for it to happen again.  This is the essence of learning from crisis and failures.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...>
To: SIKM <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Apr 15, 2020 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Learning Not Blame -- “Inquiry” Not “Inquisition.” We Can Work With This in Getting Back to Some Form of Normal.

Thanks Bill (Kaplan) for this thread! This topic is directly on target and more fundamental than most grasp towards learning, decisions, collaboration, and leadership. It is core to the topic of epistemology for what we know and how we know. In moving organizations towards a learning culture, it helps to measure the ratio of emphatic statements (count exclamation points) versus questions (count question marks). Then measure the ratio of questions from curiosity (inquiry) versus questions from conviction (inquisition). Then measure the ratio of questions from curiosity that seek a single “root cause” versus the questions from curiosity that seek the “root factors” which in combination can create a “perfect storm.” I call it moving from a “5-WHYs” questioning technique to a “5-WHATs” questioning technique. We will find the answers to the questions we ask. And T.J. Elliott makes a great point that the answers for causality will normally be found at the organization level, not the individual level, as noted by ISPI, Tom Gilbert, and Harold Stolovitch.

All the best,
John Lewis, Ed.D.
John@...
Author - Story Thinking: Transforming Organizations for the Fourth Industrial Revolution


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:33 PM T J Elliott <tjell2010@...> wrote:
Murray, I agree with you completely. So glad to see you invoke Admiral Rickover; my dad was an electrical engineer and Rickover was one of his heroes. What has stuck with me from Amy Edmondson's work is the research that she did in which she presented high level executives at organizations with the spectrum of causes of failure. (You can see it in this article here very easily.) When Amy asked the execs to identify where they thought the causes were with some recent failure within their organization, they did so and then she asked them to articulate where blame was laid actually at the moment of the failure. It was amazing that executives admitted that they had blamed people for their lack of ability when they knew that the problems lay elsewhere; e.g. process inadequacy, process complexity, uncertainty, etc. It reminds me of stuff that I learned from Tom Gilbert, Harold Stolovitch, and others around human performance technology in which the research indicated that somewhere between 20 and 40% of performance was within the control of the individual and the rest of the effect had to do with factors such as whether the right person had been chosen for the job in the first place, the quality of management, the specificity of objectives, whether requisite tools and knowledge were available, etc.

Where your example of Rickover is particularly valid for me is in its invocation of a leadership exerting not just a first-order control that requires people to adopt a mindset and set of behaviors, but also because Rickover stipulated certain systemic changes so that the lower less visible methods of control (e.g., forms, meeting agendas, procedures, etc.) also enforced this notion of learning. Thanks for the example and thanks for the reply, Murray
Peace,
T.J. Elliott
609 306-4129

"Whoever wishes to have honor or strength instead of good friends, reckons badly."
Euripides, Herakles

 


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:21 PM Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Another good post TJ!  What I'm taking from it is that organizational culture dictates if we blame or learn and so leadership plays a big role.  Unfortunately I don't see the US as having a learning culture (and I'm not blaming the President or the Democrats) as our system is adversarial by design meaning that we want each side to blame the other.  One funny thing I noticed is that Richover could force an organizational culture on the nuclear navy that was different than the regular navy, this carried through to the commercial nuclear industry, in my own company we had the nuclear way and the company way so playing the blame game could not be overcome at the organizational level, only at the sub-organizational level.  So learning versus blame is going to be an issue for all organizations....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: T J Elliott <tjell2010@...>
To: SIKM <SIKM@groups.io>; nancydixon <nancydixon@...>
Sent: Wed, Apr 15, 2020 11:51 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Learning Not Blame -- “Inquiry” Not “Inquisition.” We Can Work With This in Getting Back to Some Form of Normal.

Amy Edmondson has much to say about the subject of how we deal with failure and especially how we assign blame — often incorrectly as it turns out


But, I think, that the University of Chicago philosopher Agnes Callard points out how difficult it is for people to forgo their anger even in those circumstances where there does appear to be a failure of accountability:
. "If the argument works, it follows that a person gives up his or her anger not (emphasis added) because the issue has been resolved or even addressed in any way but merely because, for example, he or she sees that he or she will be better off in a nonangry condition. Pragmatic reasons for ceasing to be angry have positive counterparts: pragmatic reasons to get angry." It may strain the definitions of what we would accept this pragmatism, but there may be a fear that if we don't get angry that we are going to get stepped on again, that we will have to accept bad behavior forever and ever. I note this because as worthy as the desire to forgo blame is and as practical as such an action might be especially from the perspective of learning and knowledge generation as a prelude to better decision-making and action, persuading humans to do that is very difficult. As Callard notes, in order to get rid of the kind of anger that blame engenders, there needs to be a "bilaterality", a recognition on both sides that something has happened here that violates what at least one side thought of as the norms of the relationship. Callard continues, "Anger is not a desire to fix something but a way of grasping the fact that it is broken..." If there is a resolute unwillingness to admit that something was broken, then people are going to find it difficult to move on, to forgo blame, to learn rather than burn. Nancy Dixon on this list has as much experience with after action reviews as anybody in the world I will bet and I wonder what she thinks about how we suspend our tendency to blame at these moments.
Peace,
T.J. Elliott
609 306-4129

"Whoever wishes to have honor or strength instead of good friends, reckons badly."
Euripides, Herakles

 


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:18 PM Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Good point Bill, I was part of Admiral Richover's nuclear navy and that was a foundation point there also, learn first, prevent recurrence, then worry about corrective actions.  We were still held accountable for "stupid" mistakes but it was considered more important to determine why a bad decision was made and how to prevent it again than it was to punish someone for making the bad decision.  Same in nuclear industry.  I also believe people are more willing to be accountable and are more professional when they know the organization realizes that bad decisions by well trained people are not always because they weren't competent.  Most of the time it was a deficiency in training or procedure.  Sometimes it was because one of those unknown unknowns that hadn't been considered happened.  Most of our human errors were due to fatigue, other stressors, process error, and poor human factor design but not because people didn't know better or wanted to make an error.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Kaplan <bill@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Apr 15, 2020 9:25 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Learning Not Blame -- “Inquiry” Not “Inquisition.” We Can Work With This in Getting Back to Some Form of Normal.

Thanks Murray. I have found over the past 20 years and before that in the Air Force working with the IG that the context of the research or investigation or assessment directly impacts the quality of the outcome and how that outcome then impacts the needed changes.
 
From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Murray Jennex via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 18:27
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Learning Not Blame -- “Inquiry” Not “Inquisition.” We Can Work With This in Getting Back to Some Form of Normal.
 
nice article and I totally agree with you Bill!  I worked in the nuclear industry for many years and the foundation of event analysis and investigation was to learn first and not worry about blame.  We found people were a lot more forthcoming and honest when investigations weren't about blame and were focused on learning from the event and preventing its recurrence.  Politicians could learn much from this!....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Kaplan <bill@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Apr 14, 2020 9:08 am
Subject: [SIKM] Learning Not Blame -- “Inquiry” Not “Inquisition.” We Can Work With This in Getting Back to Some Form of Normal.
Dear Colleagues
 
 
I share a perspective on the value of focusing on learning rather than blaming now that we can see ourselves turning the ?corner in the pandemic fight.  Where should we be spending our valuable and limited time and resources?  What is the opportunity in front to of us to learn from all of this?
 
Would be interested in your perspectives.
 
Best
 
Bill
 
 
  
 
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com
 
 


Re: Knowledge recognition technologies #tools

 

Hi Mila

 

Not sure I have enough to help you, but would offer the following hi-level considerations that might tighten up your question’s focus:

 

  1. Do you have an idea of the organization’s’ business environment and the knowledge management environment? 
    1. Why does the organization exist? What is the mission? 
    2. What kind of tech and tools does the organization have to support knowledge capture, sharing, etc?
    3. What kind of knowledge sharing culture exists to support the use of knowledge and the flow of knwoedge within and across the organization?
  2. Where are the gaps between what they want to do and what KM technologies they need to do it?

 

 

Available discuss further if you wish. Others here can also help. Hope this helps.

 

Best

 

Bill

 

  

 

Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com

 

 

 

From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mila Malekolkalami via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 10:40
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge recognition technologies

 

I need to identify different technologies in KM.

What technologies are used in different KM processes?

 

I have read Nick Milton's book, knowledge technologies. But i didn't find what I need.


For example, Orbital and Skillsoft are sample vendors in knowledge creation.

 

But I cant find any technologies that are used for recognition of knowledge.

I have to find these technologies used in organizations and compare them together.

 

 

 

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:54 PM, Stan Garfield

<stangarfield@...> wrote:

Hi, Mila.

Thanks for posting again!

Please say a bit more about your query.  What do you mean by knowledge recognition?  How are you planning to use the information you are seeking?

Regards,
Stan

2641 - 2660 of 9977