Date   

A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward? #strategy #maturity #knowledge-graph

Stephen Bounds
 

Wise words as always Patrick. I have also reconciled myself to a journey of decades, but I always ask "what more can I do?"

If we are seeking institutionalisation (and I think we should), I suggest that we have five key areas of effort:
  1. ISO KM Standard: ISO 30401 is great but needs to be seen as a "foot in the door" rather than a manual for good practice. Its adoption needs to be stewarded by the KM community, yes, but I feel like it will live or die by how well we progress in other areas.

  2. Broadening our contact base: The vast majority of people who list an involvement with "knowledge management" never interact with our community. For example, there are 21,000 people in Australia and 1,500 companies in Australia alone who list "Knowledge Management" as a current or past interest on LinkedIn, but we have very few ways to reach 99% of them.

  3. KM accreditation: We have made some good progress along the CILIP KM Chartership route. I know we are still in the pilot phase, but I would love to see this expanded to a formal international chapter structure similar to IIBA Chapters. We also need to look at how we reconcile private accreditation efforts such as the KMI.

  4. Learned society: Establishing a society or academy of fellows seems important to centralise the expertise needed to make progress on guiding academic discourse, influence and accredit university course content, and provide a voice for the discipline. This is not an accrediting body so although I would see CILIP KM Fellows as being likely invitees to the society, I personally believe the roles are distinct. This could be new, or we have a number of candidate organisations that could fill this role including KMGN and SIKM itself. As we know though, governance and funding are not free or simple to stand up.

  5. Common syllabus: Probably the most time consuming but most important long term initiative for professionalising the discipline. I have made my own start at the Open KM Syllabus but this is as much about getting past the "blank page" as anything else and encouraging contributions from others.

I feel like it would really help if our community had a written strategy developed around these pillars. Do others agree? I would be more than happy to coordinate or participate in a working group around the idea.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 12/05/2020 5:52 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

I feel your frustration Stephen. And these words resonated:

<<While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.>>

[Not that braggadocio has disappeared from our community]

However, I don’t think we are failing to make progress. It’s just slow to institutionalise a profession as young as we are. Theoretical frameworks are not enough. We haven’t yet mastered the art of the societal politics of KM. We have to be prepared to think in terms of decades, and looking after the continuity of our profession, helping our successors, and constantly hammering away at the same basic things.

I think we are making progress, painfully slow though it is. You are right to be impatient, of course. Impatience is what propels us forward. Patience is what keeps us from giving up. There you go, another contradiction we must embody.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 3:39 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,

Oh, I completely agree that KM is hard.

My frustration stems from the occasional feeling that people in the KM community have resigned themselves to the implementation of amateur-level KM with amateur-level knowledge of the discipline on the basis that it is better than having no KM at all.

KM should be at the absolute forefront of public discussions about the global COVID-19 response. What has played out across the world is absolutely not just luck (while still being a factor). We have the theoretical frameworks relating to complex adaptive systems, knowledge creation and diffusion, risk, trust, and communications to understand the problem and contribute to future solutions.

Yet I don't think I've heard KM mentioned even once in public discourse. Right now there is minimal understanding that this is at the very core of our discipline.


While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.

We have to work out how to address this lack of coherence as a discipline. Otherwise we're just going to spend the next 20 years talking to each other and not to the people who need to hear it.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 12/05/2020 3:59 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen

I don’t think hardness is really a factor in survival of KM functions. Lord knows, KM is hard.

Financial Management (and its embedded threadlets, financial management norms institutionalised into general management practice) have had 600 years to become institutionally and societally embedded. They are propped up and reinforced through pervasive laws, regulations and standards. Legally you can’t operate as a business of any size without this function. It has become a key mechanism in the whole capitalist way of creating and moving value around in society - and taxing and regulating value creation. This means you can fire any given CFO or accountant and hire another one to the same specification. Financial management has become mechanised to a large degree in many organisations. All of these factors act on its “indispensability” and none of them pertain to knowledge management at its current state of maturity. 

So while I think the metaphor of embeddedness does apply across management disciplines, and can be applied to knowledge management as to financial management, this metaphor does not extend to dispensability. KM just doesn’t have the same depth of institutional rootedness to compare with a function like FM. That’s why KM has to demonstrate value, repeatedly, win and retain support, repeatedly, play the political game, repeatedly, in addition to becoming embedded. In fact, I know of cases where over-successful embedding has rendered KM effectively invisible, and the phenomenon happens that Matt talks about - periodic loss of support, followed by reinvention of a new function a couple of years later.

Perhaps this was more to your point Stephen?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 1:10 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Murray,

I think it matters quite a lot in the context that this conversation arose, which was around KM jobs.

Similarly to engineering, Patrick made comments about the pervasiveness of "small f small m" financial management -- yet I see no signs of a world in which the CFO and accountants are all made redundant. Chartered professionals have reached a level of specialised expertise where there is a broad recognition that their skills cannot be easily replicated by a lay person. 

To be blunt, if "frankly KM isn't that hard" then we need to make it harder. Otherwise, we will continue to see dedicated KM roles being shed from companies en masse when there are economic downturns.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 11/05/2020 4:53 pm, Murray Jennex wrote:
I have worked with people who didn't know they were engineers (but its not real common).  I'm not sure why you are sensitive about this, that people can do KM without knowing they are doing KM.  The name KM came about in the late 90s with it being OM, organizational memory or perhaps OL, organizational learning before that.  Those practitioners didn't know they were doing KM until they embraced the term KM.  Managing knowledge is not something that KM invented, people have been managing knowledge for centuries without knowing they were doing KM.  Now I didn't say that people adopting a knowledge practice are knowledge managers, but they can be and are managers and frankly, smart people in any discipline can figure out how to adopt and implement good knowledge practices.  I won't say they are as good at as a KM professional but they get by.  This is not unique to the world as the world is full of amateur engineers, astronomers, photographers, farmers, financiers, etc.  Heck, even on this list I've seen many posters complain about doctoral level KM professionals who teach KM.  It sounds elitist to suggest that only KM professionals can do KM, frankly KM isn't that hard if you study the different disciplines that we combine and have the vision to see what needs to be done.  This is why we are seeing some KM positions eliminated even though we know we provide value.  Heck, we are seeing MBA enrollments decline because gifted amateurs such as Mark Cuban say you don't need to be a MBA professional to be a good business person; and to some degree he is correct.  Same applies to KM....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 10, 2020 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

Is there such a thing as an "embedded engineer"? If not, why not?
I have some issues with the idea that people "don't even know they are doing KM" unless people also "don't even know they are doing engineering".
I don't think workers who know how to assemble Ikea furniture "are" engineers, and I don't think people who informally adopt a sound KM practice within their teams "are" knowledge managers either.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 10/05/2020 6:24 am, Murray Jennex via groups.io wrote:
I understand your point Nick, but I look at embedded KM much like I would look at a embedded system, something that works but is buried in the innards of the system and is something nobody notices until it doesn't work.  I see embedded KM as KM built into the work practices: knowledge capture a part of the analysis of problems, knowledge sharing a part of the setup of how knowledge is saved and searched, collaboration with colleagues a part of the work culture and evaluation system, and etc.  You don't need a KM function to monitor this as monitoring is also embedded.  In these organizations they don't always even know they are doing KM, it is just good practice or common sense (I think this is something we have said as KMers for many years).  Where you do need some KM function is in governance of processes and data: mainly for ensuring knowledge alignment with strategic goals, incorporate process changes, and to anticipate future needs and process modifications.  How large this function is I'm not sure and it probably varies widely in practice.  How did embedded KM get there in the first place? That is where KM may have had a role (and I would agree it is done better if KM did have a role in initial design) but with knowledge workers it will happen even if there is no formal KM guidance as it is just good sense.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Milton <nick.milton@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sat, May 9, 2020 7:40 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I don’t think embedded KM means no KM department, its just that they have a different function – support, monitoring, coaching, training, measuring, rather than doing. .
 
After all, most organisations have embedded financial management, but still have financial professionals and a CFO. 
 
 
 
Nick Milton

 
 
From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Jones
Sent: 09 May 2020 15:09
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs
 
Rahul - sure, my ask is to understand the industries or sectors of the economy (or perhaps more broadly, the global organizational landscape, to include NGO/NFP's & Government agencies) where KM is successful. For me, with on-going threads about KM job losses, demise of KM, and the like, I'm wanting to learn whether success is tied to unique industry needs.

Bill - thanks again for these inputs.

Murray - the examples are helpful; in my work in utilities, I've learned that fault intolerance tends to show up as increased, very detailed processes and controls, where knowledge is clearly integral - so I see your point.

Nick - execellent chart !! and I was hoping this sort of analysis had been done.  Interesting that you show embedded KM as the ideal end state in an applied maturity model rather than an alternative approach to a functional "KM department".  Curious if there's another thread on KM maturity models - guessing yes? I'll check - 

Appreciate all the responses, you're definitely advancing my thinking - thanks much for taking time to weigh-in.

Chris 



Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Rob,

There are a few avenues I consider relevant from a KM perspective:

  • Interpersonal and impersonal trust frameworks explore how trust is established and the consequences it being broken (in short, without trust we either waste time independently validating what we're told or more commonly, go to an alternative, more trusted source of information)

  • Debiasing theory helps us target our information strategies the correct way to win the public debate

  • Psychological distancing helps explain why people aren't properly evaluating risks even when they hear information in an unbiased way

You also mention that "people want to have the best response (rather than the self-serving one)", but that actually forms part of my point. KM is (or should be) a value-neutral discipline. Our KM theory should guide people in understanding how incentives and demotivators alter how decision-making actually plays out in organisational and societal systems -- and to give people the tools to understand and interact with these systems for themselves.

For example, "nudge theory" is unfortunately mostly a pseudoscience due to oversimplification. But we see that the concept of people having tools to alter systems behaviour is very powerful and attractive.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 12/05/2020 9:39 pm, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

Stephen –

 

I was pondering your message, and was wondering, two things.  First, why do you believe that KM has the skills and tools necessary to help with the COVID-19 crisis such that we should be at the “absolute forefront” of the public discussion?  Second, what causes you to believe people want to have the best response (rather than the self-serving one)?

 

I’m in an interesting spot in this discussion.  My wife is an infection preventionist.  We’ve reprioritized content production in the studio to allow here COVID-19 content to be produced ahead of everything else.  She’s got 42 pieces of content that she is contracted to produce for long term care.  We have a patent for an invention explicitly designed to reduce infections.  It’s unrelated to COVID-19 but one that has a high mortality rate.  My daughter is an ER nurse and has both caught and recovered from COVID-19. 

 

I watch the misinformation everywhere.  We’ve got unreliable tests (40% false negative), the push of antibody testing that has absolutely no use.  You don’t develop good immunity and the tests don’t differentiate between the different kinds of antibodies to tell us to what degree you might become resistant to it.  People want to FEEL safe whether they are or not.  There’s not enough personal protective equipment to cover our front-line workers appropriately.  My wife and I bought our daughter a full-face respirator for work so that she didn’t get reinfected.  We’re telling workers to reuse masks when we know that the efficacy is reduced when we do that – and we have to so that we can spread what we have around.

 

My point is that we don’t add value to the discussion, we do.  I just think that the thing that’s needed is a way to tamp down the misinformation and I don’t know that I’ve seen any of our tools designed to do that.  Am I missing something fundamental?  Even the key systems thinking pieces (tragedy of commons, supply chain oscillations) are things that we’re aware of as KMers – but I don’t know that it’s at our core knowledge for the industry.  Again, I feel like I’m missing something.  I think that we have the capacity to add value, but I don’t think that the public is interested in “right”, I think they’re interested in feeling safe.

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

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

 

From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:40 AM
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

 

Hi Patrick,

Oh, I completely agree that KM is hard.

My frustration stems from the occasional feeling that people in the KM community have resigned themselves to the implementation of amateur-level KM with amateur-level knowledge of the discipline on the basis that it is better than having no KM at all.

KM should be at the absolute forefront of public discussions about the global COVID-19 response. What has played out across the world is absolutely not just luck (while still being a factor). We have the theoretical frameworks relating to complex adaptive systems, knowledge creation and diffusion, risk, trust, and communications to understand the problem and contribute to future solutions.

Yet I don't think I've heard KM mentioned even once in public discourse. Right now there is minimal understanding that this is at the very core of our discipline.

While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.

We have to work out how to address this lack of coherence as a discipline. Otherwise we're just going to spend the next 20 years talking to each other and not to the people who need to hear it.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 12/05/2020 3:59 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Hi Stephen

 

I don’t think hardness is really a factor in survival of KM functions. Lord knows, KM is hard.

 

Financial Management (and its embedded threadlets, financial management norms institutionalised into general management practice) have had 600 years to become institutionally and societally embedded. They are propped up and reinforced through pervasive laws, regulations and standards. Legally you can’t operate as a business of any size without this function. It has become a key mechanism in the whole capitalist way of creating and moving value around in society - and taxing and regulating value creation. This means you can fire any given CFO or accountant and hire another one to the same specification. Financial management has become mechanised to a large degree in many organisations. All of these factors act on its “indispensability” and none of them pertain to knowledge management at its current state of maturity. 

 

So while I think the metaphor of embeddedness does apply across management disciplines, and can be applied to knowledge management as to financial management, this metaphor does not extend to dispensability. KM just doesn’t have the same depth of institutional rootedness to compare with a function like FM. That’s why KM has to demonstrate value, repeatedly, win and retain support, repeatedly, play the political game, repeatedly, in addition to becoming embedded. In fact, I know of cases where over-successful embedding has rendered KM effectively invisible, and the phenomenon happens that Matt talks about - periodic loss of support, followed by reinvention of a new function a couple of years later.

 

Perhaps this was more to your point Stephen?

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383





twitter: @plambesg



Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 12 May 2020, at 1:10 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

 

Hi Murray,

I think it matters quite a lot in the context that this conversation arose, which was around KM jobs.

Similarly to engineering, Patrick made comments about the pervasiveness of "small f small m" financial management -- yet I see no signs of a world in which the CFO and accountants are all made redundant. Chartered professionals have reached a level of specialised expertise where there is a broad recognition that their skills cannot be easily replicated by a lay person. 

To be blunt, if "frankly KM isn't that hard" then we need to make it harder. Otherwise, we will continue to see dedicated KM roles being shed from companies en masse when there are economic downturns.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 11/05/2020 4:53 pm, Murray Jennex wrote:

I have worked with people who didn't know they were engineers (but its not real common).  I'm not sure why you are sensitive about this, that people can do KM without knowing they are doing KM.  The name KM came about in the late 90s with it being OM, organizational memory or perhaps OL, organizational learning before that.  Those practitioners didn't know they were doing KM until they embraced the term KM.  Managing knowledge is not something that KM invented, people have been managing knowledge for centuries without knowing they were doing KM.  Now I didn't say that people adopting a knowledge practice are knowledge managers, but they can be and are managers and frankly, smart people in any discipline can figure out how to adopt and implement good knowledge practices.  I won't say they are as good at as a KM professional but they get by.  This is not unique to the world as the world is full of amateur engineers, astronomers, photographers, farmers, financiers, etc.  Heck, even on this list I've seen many posters complain about doctoral level KM professionals who teach KM.  It sounds elitist to suggest that only KM professionals can do KM, frankly KM isn't that hard if you study the different disciplines that we combine and have the vision to see what needs to be done.  This is why we are seeing some KM positions eliminated even though we know we provide value.  Heck, we are seeing MBA enrollments decline because gifted amateurs such as Mark Cuban say you don't need to be a MBA professional to be a good business person; and to some degree he is correct.  Same applies to KM....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 10, 2020 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

Is there such a thing as an "embedded engineer"? If not, why not?

I have some issues with the idea that people "don't even know they are doing KM" unless people also "don't even know they are doing engineering".

I don't think workers who know how to assemble Ikea furniture "are" engineers, and I don't think people who informally adopt a sound KM practice within their teams "are" knowledge managers either.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 10/05/2020 6:24 am, Murray Jennex via groups.io wrote:

I understand your point Nick, but I look at embedded KM much like I would look at a embedded system, something that works but is buried in the innards of the system and is something nobody notices until it doesn't work.  I see embedded KM as KM built into the work practices: knowledge capture a part of the analysis of problems, knowledge sharing a part of the setup of how knowledge is saved and searched, collaboration with colleagues a part of the work culture and evaluation system, and etc.  You don't need a KM function to monitor this as monitoring is also embedded.  In these organizations they don't always even know they are doing KM, it is just good practice or common sense (I think this is something we have said as KMers for many years).  Where you do need some KM function is in governance of processes and data: mainly for ensuring knowledge alignment with strategic goals, incorporate process changes, and to anticipate future needs and process modifications.  How large this function is I'm not sure and it probably varies widely in practice.  How did embedded KM get there in the first place? That is where KM may have had a role (and I would agree it is done better if KM did have a role in initial design) but with knowledge workers it will happen even if there is no formal KM guidance as it is just good sense.....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Milton <nick.milton@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sat, May 9, 2020 7:40 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I don’t think embedded KM means no KM department, its just that they have a different function – support, monitoring, coaching, training, measuring, rather than doing. .

 

After all, most organisations have embedded financial management, but still have financial professionals and a CFO. 

 

 

 

Nick Milton


 

 

From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Jones
Sent: 09 May 2020 15:09
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

 

Rahul - sure, my ask is to understand the industries or sectors of the economy (or perhaps more broadly, the global organizational landscape, to include NGO/NFP's & Government agencies) where KM is successful. For me, with on-going threads about KM job losses, demise of KM, and the like, I'm wanting to learn whether success is tied to unique industry needs.

Bill - thanks again for these inputs.

Murray - the examples are helpful; in my work in utilities, I've learned that fault intolerance tends to show up as increased, very detailed processes and controls, where knowledge is clearly integral - so I see your point.

Nick - execellent chart !! and I was hoping this sort of analysis had been done.  Interesting that you show embedded KM as the ideal end state in an applied maturity model rather than an alternative approach to a functional "KM department".  Curious if there's another thread on KM maturity models - guessing yes? I'll check - 

Appreciate all the responses, you're definitely advancing my thinking - thanks much for taking time to weigh-in.

Chris 

 


Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Nancy,

I am not wedded to the term "Knowledge Management" but I do feel like OL is a subset of what KM can be. Along Murray's thinking, I prefer an expansive definition which also includes AI, communications, process optimisation, risk, horizon scanning, and so on.

A little while ago I mapped CILIP's professional ecosystem against a standard problem solving pattern I use to help me find the most relevant domain for how organisations need to be helped.

I found it to be an interesting thought exercise because it both challenged and clarified how we think of "turf" in our respective roles.

And to pick up on Aprill's point about the nexus of academic and professionals in practice, a standard framework like this may aid in building an understanding in academia about what kinds of practice innovations people are actually looking for.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 13/05/2020 6:24 am, Nancy Dixon wrote:

Taking the long view, I think KM will survive, but perhaps not in its current configuration nor with the “KM” label. 
Starting with Drucker's, Post-Capitalist Society,1993 and Weick's, Sensemaking in Organizations, 1995 there has been a growing understanding of the value of knowledge to organizations.  I was involved in Organizational Learning  (Dixon, The Organizational Learning Cycle, 1996), conversely called, The Learning Organization (Senge, The Firth Discipline, 1994) before the talk started about KM. From my perspective Organizational Learning became relabeled as KM.  

Even now, in organizations we see new labels being taken up that privileging knowledge.  Most of these labels use terms like “digital,” ”intelligence" or “learning" in some form. Already, many of us in SIKM are specialized in some aspect of KM, we are experts in Sharepoint, Big data, SNA, facilitation. My own practice has long been associated with designing conversations that both develop and transfer knowledge.

I think the importance and emphasis on knowledge will continue, but that we cannot hold the label too closely, or think of KM as something that must be a department or a separate part of the organization. It was helpful to start that way, with a dedicated group of smart KMer's thinking about how to make the best use of an organization’s knowledge. But we may be nearing the end of that time and we can help create what is coming next. Maybe something that moves organizations into new organizational structures with paradigms based on our joint intelligence. (I’m thinking of Laloux’s Reinventing Organizations.)  It is exciting to think about what is possible with this valuable commodity to which we are all dedicated. 

Nancy
 


On May 12, 2020, at 3:32 AM, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

While that’s true Murray, my point (following Stephen) was that we have to think on a broader scale than of within organisations. My point about institutionalisation was at the societal level - as a profession, becoming embedded into social institutions and norms [as engineers, lawyers, accountants are].

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 4:28 PM, Murray Jennex <murphjen@...> wrote:

yes Patrick, it takes time to get KM institutionalized.  The disillusionment comes from having to take time to do something in organizations that often think only short term.  If we can get leaders to think a little longer that would help....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 12:52 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I feel your frustration Stephen. And these words resonated:

<<While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.>>

[Not that braggadocio has disappeared from our community]

However, I don’t think we are failing to make progress. It’s just slow to institutionalise a profession as young as we are. Theoretical frameworks are not enough. We haven’t yet mastered the art of the societal politics of KM. We have to be prepared to think in terms of decades, and looking after the continuity of our profession, helping our successors, and constantly hammering away at the same basic things.

I think we are making progress, painfully slow though it is. You are right to be impatient, of course. Impatience is what propels us forward. Patience is what keeps us from giving up. There you go, another contradiction we must embody.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 3:39 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,
Oh, I completely agree that KM is hard.
My frustration stems from the occasional feeling that people in the KM community have resigned themselves to the implementation of amateur-level KM with amateur-level knowledge of the discipline on the basis that it is better than having no KM at all.
KM should be at the absolute forefront of public discussions about the global COVID-19 response. What has played out across the world is absolutely not just luck (while still being a factor). We have the theoretical frameworks relating to complex adaptive systems, knowledge creation and diffusion, risk, trust, and communications to understand the problem and contribute to future solutions.
Yet I don't think I've heard KM mentioned even once in public discourse. Right now there is minimal understanding that this is at the very core of our discipline.

While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.
We have to work out how to address this lack of coherence as a discipline. Otherwise we're just going to spend the next 20 years talking to each other and not to the people who need to hear it.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 12/05/2020 3:59 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen

I don’t think hardness is really a factor in survival of KM functions. Lord knows, KM is hard.

Financial Management (and its embedded threadlets, financial management norms institutionalised into general management practice) have had 600 years to become institutionally and societally embedded. They are propped up and reinforced through pervasive laws, regulations and standards. Legally you can’t operate as a business of any size without this function. It has become a key mechanism in the whole capitalist way of creating and moving value around in society - and taxing and regulating value creation. This means you can fire any given CFO or accountant and hire another one to the same specification. Financial management has become mechanised to a large degree in many organisations. All of these factors act on its “indispensability” and none of them pertain to knowledge management at its current state of maturity. 

So while I think the metaphor of embeddedness does apply across management disciplines, and can be applied to knowledge management as to financial management, this metaphor does not extend to dispensability. KM just doesn’t have the same depth of institutional rootedness to compare with a function like FM. That’s why KM has to demonstrate value, repeatedly, win and retain support, repeatedly, play the political game, repeatedly, in addition to becoming embedded. In fact, I know of cases where over-successful embedding has rendered KM effectively invisible, and the phenomenon happens that Matt talks about - periodic loss of support, followed by reinvention of a new function a couple of years later.

Perhaps this was more to your point Stephen?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 1:10 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Murray,
I think it matters quite a lot in the context that this conversation arose, which was around KM jobs.
Similarly to engineering, Patrick made comments about the pervasiveness of "small f small m" financial management -- yet I see no signs of a world in which the CFO and accountants are all made redundant. Chartered professionals have reached a level of specialised expertise where there is a broad recognition that their skills cannot be easily replicated by a lay person. 
To be blunt, if "frankly KM isn't that hard" then we need to make it harder. Otherwise, we will continue to see dedicated KM roles being shed from companies en masse when there are economic downturns.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 11/05/2020 4:53 pm, Murray Jennex wrote:
I have worked with people who didn't know they were engineers (but its not real common).  I'm not sure why you are sensitive about this, that people can do KM without knowing they are doing KM.  The name KM came about in the late 90s with it being OM, organizational memory or perhaps OL, organizational learning before that.  Those practitioners didn't know they were doing KM until they embraced the term KM.  Managing knowledge is not something that KM invented, people have been managing knowledge for centuries without knowing they were doing KM.  Now I didn't say that people adopting a knowledge practice are knowledge managers, but they can be and are managers and frankly, smart people in any discipline can figure out how to adopt and implement good knowledge practices.  I won't say they are as good at as a KM professional but they get by.  This is not unique to the world as the world is full of amateur engineers, astronomers, photographers, farmers, financiers, etc.  Heck, even on this list I've seen many posters complain about doctoral level KM professionals who teach KM.  It sounds elitist to suggest that only KM professionals can do KM, frankly KM isn't that hard if you study the different disciplines that we combine and have the vision to see what needs to be done.  This is why we are seeing some KM positions eliminated even though we know we provide value.  Heck, we are seeing MBA enrollments decline because gifted amateurs such as Mark Cuban say you don't need to be a MBA professional to be a good business person; and to some degree he is correct.  Same applies to KM....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 10, 2020 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

Is there such a thing as an "embedded engineer"? If not, why not?
I have some issues with the idea that people "don't even know they are doing KM" unless people also "don't even know they are doing engineering".
I don't think workers who know how to assemble Ikea furniture "are" engineers, and I don't think people who informally adopt a sound KM practice within their teams "are" knowledge managers either.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 10/05/2020 6:24 am, Murray Jennex via groups.io wrote:
I understand your point Nick, but I look at embedded KM much like I would look at a embedded system, something that works but is buried in the innards of the system and is something nobody notices until it doesn't work.  I see embedded KM as KM built into the work practices: knowledge capture a part of the analysis of problems, knowledge sharing a part of the setup of how knowledge is saved and searched, collaboration with colleagues a part of the work culture and evaluation system, and etc.  You don't need a KM function to monitor this as monitoring is also embedded.  In these organizations they don't always even know they are doing KM, it is just good practice or common sense (I think this is something we have said as KMers for many years).  Where you do need some KM function is in governance of processes and data: mainly for ensuring knowledge alignment with strategic goals, incorporate process changes, and to anticipate future needs and process modifications.  How large this function is I'm not sure and it probably varies widely in practice.  How did embedded KM get there in the first place? That is where KM may have had a role (and I would agree it is done better if KM did have a role in initial design) but with knowledge workers it will happen even if there is no formal KM guidance as it is just good sense.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Milton <nick.milton@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sat, May 9, 2020 7:40 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I don’t think embedded KM means no KM department, its just that they have a different function – support, monitoring, coaching, training, measuring, rather than doing. .
 
After all, most organisations have embedded financial management, but still have financial professionals and a CFO. 
 
 
 
Nick Milton

 
 
From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Jones
Sent: 09 May 2020 15:09
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs
 
Rahul - sure, my ask is to understand the industries or sectors of the economy (or perhaps more broadly, the global organizational landscape, to include NGO/NFP's & Government agencies) where KM is successful. For me, with on-going threads about KM job losses, demise of KM, and the like, I'm wanting to learn whether success is tied to unique industry needs.

Bill - thanks again for these inputs.

Murray - the examples are helpful; in my work in utilities, I've learned that fault intolerance tends to show up as increased, very detailed processes and controls, where knowledge is clearly integral - so I see your point.

Nick - execellent chart !! and I was hoping this sort of analysis had been done.  Interesting that you show embedded KM as the ideal end state in an applied maturity model rather than an alternative approach to a functional "KM department".  Curious if there's another thread on KM maturity models - guessing yes? I'll check - 

Appreciate all the responses, you're definitely advancing my thinking - thanks much for taking time to weigh-in.

Chris 


<email footer small.jpeg>



Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

T J Elliott
 

This piece by Audrey Watters on the history of educational technology and implications for what has to go on during the pandemic today is interesting because of how it reframes some of the assumptions that were made in that case. I found it relevant to what John and Murray were noting, but that might just be me!

🤔
Peace,
T.J. Elliott
609 306-4129

Wall Street Journal columnist and best selling author (His 2009 memoir Closing Time was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year) Joe Queenan and his collaborator T.J. Elliott are 'staging' Grudges, a problem comedy for our times, as a live streamed Zoom reading on Saturday, May16th at 7PM ET and Sunday, May 17th at 2PM ET 

Reserve via EventBrite now or see the Knowledge Workings website for more information on this live streamed reading via Zoom. 



Re: Value KPIs, statistics, facts on loss or gains associated with poor or great metadata mining #value #metrics #metadata

David Eddy
 

Minu -

>
Please share any studies, surveys, articles, reports, on KPIs, stats or facts on loss or gains associated
>  with poor or great Metadata mining.
>

It would be useful if you would CLEARLY state what your situation is & what you think you need.

Regurgitating marketing bafflegab & jargon is not useful.

“Millions of documents” says nothing.  Last I looked, I have 2M+ documents on this desktop computer.

Please share with us what you consider to be “metadata.”  What is NOT metadata.


On May 1st I asked:

Three questions:

1/ - what do you consider to be (or not) a "document?"

2/- what is [your] technical environment(s)?

3/ - how big (employees) is the organization & how old is it?


- David


Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

David Eddy
 

Nancy -

>
 Drucker's, Post-Capitalist Society,1993 
>

Is this the book where Drucker observes: 

“To treat accounting/finance & information systems as two, separate, unrelated academic & professional disciplines is unacceptable.”?

- David


Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

Murray Jennex
 

I really think all KM journals are trying to bridge the gap, after all, the best research is research that is relevant, done well and rigorously, and has value to readers!  Isn't that what we all want?....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Aprill Allen <aprill@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 12:17 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #proven-pra #jobs #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers

Yeah, I think we’re all falling somewhere on the same page. :)
I neglected to say that RealKM magazine aims to be that bridge, but it needs wider contribution and support. 




--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
KM Consulting & KCS Training
M: +61 (0)400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

Murray Jennex
 

nice quote:
"But some teachers may feel that providing students with questioning skills will undermine the authority they need to deliver the answers in the classroom." (J Lewis, Story Thinking)

Unfortunately, even with a focus on teaching critical thinking, too many teachers are afraid students will question too much and too many students don't understand the importance of asking good questions rather than just stumping the professor......murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: John Lewis <johnlewisedd@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra #jobs

Another deep and fantastic thread on the nature of knowledge and future of knowledge management. And some fantastic posts: "we can help create what is coming next." (Nancy Dixon). But I actually think that we are the "key" group capable of creating what is coming next. The fourth industrial revolution is based on "intelligence" itself as the foundational capacity within organizations. Some of us have been moving towards this challenge for a long time: “An organization’s knowledge is of less significance than are the processes needed to continuously revise or create knowledge” (Nancy Dixon, 1999). I agree. Thank you Nancy!

I believe we are currently too focused on "knowledge" instead of the learning processes that create it. All knowledge is just an answer to a question. We should teach questioning skills before knowledge. And start early. "But some teachers may feel that providing students with questioning skills will undermine the authority they need to deliver the answers in the classroom." (J Lewis, Story Thinking)

"Without an underlying map, we are lost, in geography and mental models." The current typical change model is prescriptive, with steps to follow, but without a descriptive foundational inference -- meaning they are just a craft, without sensemaking or understanding. "This is like getting some navigational directions to memorize without a map to understand the overall layout of the landscape, how to reroute when the directions stop working, or where the directional steps originated from." My latest research and book is based on the study of story structures as organizational operational and governance models (beyond storytelling) which compares 30 popular business and learning models against the sensemaking of the story thinking cycle - "Story Thinking: Transforming Organizations for the Fourth Industrial Revolution". I'm not here to promote a book but I would like to promote the idea that terms like sensemaking, learning, and story thinking may be needed to move beyond the current focus on the term "knowledge".

John Lewis, Ed.D.
John@...


On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:24 PM Nancy Dixon <nancydixon@...> wrote:
Taking the long view, I think KM will survive, but perhaps not in its current configuration nor with the “KM” label. 
Starting with Drucker's, Post-Capitalist Society,1993 and Weick's, Sensemaking in Organizations, 1995 there has been a growing understanding of the value of knowledge to organizations.  I was involved in Organizational Learning  (Dixon, The Organizational Learning Cycle, 1996), conversely called, The Learning Organization (Senge, The Firth Discipline, 1994) before the talk started about KM. From my perspective Organizational Learning became relabeled as KM.  

Even now, in organizations we see new labels being taken up that privileging knowledge.  Most of these labels use terms like “digital,” ”intelligence" or “learning" in some form. Already, many of us in SIKM are specialized in some aspect of KM, we are experts in Sharepoint, Big data, SNA, facilitation. My own practice has long been associated with designing conversations that both develop and transfer knowledge.

I think the importance and emphasis on knowledge will continue, but that we cannot hold the label too closely, or think of KM as something that must be a department or a separate part of the organization. It was helpful to start that way, with a dedicated group of smart KMer's thinking about how to make the best use of an organization’s knowledge. But we may be nearing the end of that time and we can help create what is coming next. Maybe something that moves organizations into new organizational structures with paradigms based on our joint intelligence. (I’m thinking of Laloux’s Reinventing Organizations.)  It is exciting to think about what is possible with this valuable commodity to which we are all dedicated. 

Nancy
 


On May 12, 2020, at 3:32 AM, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

While that’s true Murray, my point (following Stephen) was that we have to think on a broader scale than of within organisations. My point about institutionalisation was at the societal level - as a profession, becoming embedded into social institutions and norms [as engineers, lawyers, accountants are].

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 4:28 PM, Murray Jennex <murphjen@...> wrote:

yes Patrick, it takes time to get KM institutionalized.  The disillusionment comes from having to take time to do something in organizations that often think only short term.  If we can get leaders to think a little longer that would help....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 12:52 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I feel your frustration Stephen. And these words resonated:

<<While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.>>

[Not that braggadocio has disappeared from our community]

However, I don’t think we are failing to make progress. It’s just slow to institutionalise a profession as young as we are. Theoretical frameworks are not enough. We haven’t yet mastered the art of the societal politics of KM. We have to be prepared to think in terms of decades, and looking after the continuity of our profession, helping our successors, and constantly hammering away at the same basic things.

I think we are making progress, painfully slow though it is. You are right to be impatient, of course. Impatience is what propels us forward. Patience is what keeps us from giving up. There you go, another contradiction we must embody.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 3:39 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,
Oh, I completely agree that KM is hard.
My frustration stems from the occasional feeling that people in the KM community have resigned themselves to the implementation of amateur-level KM with amateur-level knowledge of the discipline on the basis that it is better than having no KM at all.
KM should be at the absolute forefront of public discussions about the global COVID-19 response. What has played out across the world is absolutely not just luck (while still being a factor). We have the theoretical frameworks relating to complex adaptive systems, knowledge creation and diffusion, risk, trust, and communications to understand the problem and contribute to future solutions.
Yet I don't think I've heard KM mentioned even once in public discourse. Right now there is minimal understanding that this is at the very core of our discipline.

While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.
We have to work out how to address this lack of coherence as a discipline. Otherwise we're just going to spend the next 20 years talking to each other and not to the people who need to hear it.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 12/05/2020 3:59 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen

I don’t think hardness is really a factor in survival of KM functions. Lord knows, KM is hard.

Financial Management (and its embedded threadlets, financial management norms institutionalised into general management practice) have had 600 years to become institutionally and societally embedded. They are propped up and reinforced through pervasive laws, regulations and standards. Legally you can’t operate as a business of any size without this function. It has become a key mechanism in the whole capitalist way of creating and moving value around in society - and taxing and regulating value creation. This means you can fire any given CFO or accountant and hire another one to the same specification. Financial management has become mechanised to a large degree in many organisations. All of these factors act on its “indispensability” and none of them pertain to knowledge management at its current state of maturity. 

So while I think the metaphor of embeddedness does apply across management disciplines, and can be applied to knowledge management as to financial management, this metaphor does not extend to dispensability. KM just doesn’t have the same depth of institutional rootedness to compare with a function like FM. That’s why KM has to demonstrate value, repeatedly, win and retain support, repeatedly, play the political game, repeatedly, in addition to becoming embedded. In fact, I know of cases where over-successful embedding has rendered KM effectively invisible, and the phenomenon happens that Matt talks about - periodic loss of support, followed by reinvention of a new function a couple of years later.

Perhaps this was more to your point Stephen?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 1:10 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Murray,
I think it matters quite a lot in the context that this conversation arose, which was around KM jobs.
Similarly to engineering, Patrick made comments about the pervasiveness of "small f small m" financial management -- yet I see no signs of a world in which the CFO and accountants are all made redundant. Chartered professionals have reached a level of specialised expertise where there is a broad recognition that their skills cannot be easily replicated by a lay person. 
To be blunt, if "frankly KM isn't that hard" then we need to make it harder. Otherwise, we will continue to see dedicated KM roles being shed from companies en masse when there are economic downturns.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 11/05/2020 4:53 pm, Murray Jennex wrote:
I have worked with people who didn't know they were engineers (but its not real common).  I'm not sure why you are sensitive about this, that people can do KM without knowing they are doing KM.  The name KM came about in the late 90s with it being OM, organizational memory or perhaps OL, organizational learning before that.  Those practitioners didn't know they were doing KM until they embraced the term KM.  Managing knowledge is not something that KM invented, people have been managing knowledge for centuries without knowing they were doing KM.  Now I didn't say that people adopting a knowledge practice are knowledge managers, but they can be and are managers and frankly, smart people in any discipline can figure out how to adopt and implement good knowledge practices.  I won't say they are as good at as a KM professional but they get by.  This is not unique to the world as the world is full of amateur engineers, astronomers, photographers, farmers, financiers, etc.  Heck, even on this list I've seen many posters complain about doctoral level KM professionals who teach KM.  It sounds elitist to suggest that only KM professionals can do KM, frankly KM isn't that hard if you study the different disciplines that we combine and have the vision to see what needs to be done.  This is why we are seeing some KM positions eliminated even though we know we provide value.  Heck, we are seeing MBA enrollments decline because gifted amateurs such as Mark Cuban say you don't need to be a MBA professional to be a good business person; and to some degree he is correct.  Same applies to KM....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 10, 2020 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

Is there such a thing as an "embedded engineer"? If not, why not?
I have some issues with the idea that people "don't even know they are doing KM" unless people also "don't even know they are doing engineering".
I don't think workers who know how to assemble Ikea furniture "are" engineers, and I don't think people who informally adopt a sound KM practice within their teams "are" knowledge managers either.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 10/05/2020 6:24 am, Murray Jennex via groups.io wrote:
I understand your point Nick, but I look at embedded KM much like I would look at a embedded system, something that works but is buried in the innards of the system and is something nobody notices until it doesn't work.  I see embedded KM as KM built into the work practices: knowledge capture a part of the analysis of problems, knowledge sharing a part of the setup of how knowledge is saved and searched, collaboration with colleagues a part of the work culture and evaluation system, and etc.  You don't need a KM function to monitor this as monitoring is also embedded.  In these organizations they don't always even know they are doing KM, it is just good practice or common sense (I think this is something we have said as KMers for many years).  Where you do need some KM function is in governance of processes and data: mainly for ensuring knowledge alignment with strategic goals, incorporate process changes, and to anticipate future needs and process modifications.  How large this function is I'm not sure and it probably varies widely in practice.  How did embedded KM get there in the first place? That is where KM may have had a role (and I would agree it is done better if KM did have a role in initial design) but with knowledge workers it will happen even if there is no formal KM guidance as it is just good sense.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Milton <nick.milton@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sat, May 9, 2020 7:40 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I don’t think embedded KM means no KM department, its just that they have a different function – support, monitoring, coaching, training, measuring, rather than doing. .
 
After all, most organisations have embedded financial management, but still have financial professionals and a CFO. 
 
 
 
Nick Milton

 
 
From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Jones
Sent: 09 May 2020 15:09
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs
 
Rahul - sure, my ask is to understand the industries or sectors of the economy (or perhaps more broadly, the global organizational landscape, to include NGO/NFP's & Government agencies) where KM is successful. For me, with on-going threads about KM job losses, demise of KM, and the like, I'm wanting to learn whether success is tied to unique industry needs.

Bill - thanks again for these inputs.

Murray - the examples are helpful; in my work in utilities, I've learned that fault intolerance tends to show up as increased, very detailed processes and controls, where knowledge is clearly integral - so I see your point.

Nick - execellent chart !! and I was hoping this sort of analysis had been done.  Interesting that you show embedded KM as the ideal end state in an applied maturity model rather than an alternative approach to a functional "KM department".  Curious if there's another thread on KM maturity models - guessing yes? I'll check - 

Appreciate all the responses, you're definitely advancing my thinking - thanks much for taking time to weigh-in.

Chris 


<email footer small.jpeg>



Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

Aprill Allen
 

Yeah, I think we’re all falling somewhere on the same page. :)
I neglected to say that RealKM magazine aims to be that bridge, but it needs wider contribution and support. 





--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
KM Consulting & KCS Training
M: +61 (0)400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

Murray Jennex
 

I totally agree on changing the way we teach KM in universities. I've been teaching it for many years, but as sub-parts to many courses (decision support systems, strategic project management, cybersecurity, systems analysis and design) and only because I know KM and care about KM, most texts that include a chapter on KM do not do KM justice.  I can't get a KM course in my university, too much competition with the "traditional" courses.  I use the ISO standard as a way of conveying the need for KM but business faculty are content to let KM be taught as a part of a traditional class.  Maybe this is okay, at least KM is getting integrated into the curriculum.  However I worry that many of the faculty covering KM don't understand KM well enough to convey the nuances and value of KM as well as how KM processes really work.  I'm not sure how to change this and hope this group can give me and other KM expert faculty some ideas, we are receptive. 

On the research side we have other interesting problems.  I have been able to get KM integrated into one of the leading MIS/CS conferences as its own discipline and Track for about 15 years now.  I also founded and still edited the International Journal of Knowledge Management (now in its 16th year).  My concern is that while there is a group of researchers, primarily in Europe (UK included), US, and Australia/New Zealand universities (note the researchers themselves are from many, many countries) (good research comes from other countries but not as often) that do KM research focused on working with industry partners and private/public institutions, I'm also seeing a new group of young researchers who don't really understand KM and are solely looking to get published.  Many of these are taking the short cut of using only universities and students as their data sources.  Some of these papers are okay, most focus on the university as a knowledge organization (on this I greatly disagree as I see universities as for the most part pretty poor KM organizations) I also do not care for these papers if they cannot generalize their results to other types of organizations.  Finally, I greatly dislike the researchers that don't practice KM in their research, i.e. they don't take the time to understand what the KM literature tells us (note that I'm old school also in that I include organizational learning and organizational memory as precursors to KM and am now expanding KM to include AI, ML Big Data, etc. as KM tools).  Anyway, I digress as the point I'm making is that while there is some good KM research going on, there is also a lot of useless research going on.  I think we can do better and need to do better.  Same here in that would really love suggestions on how to get better KM research done, research that has value to practitioners and not just journals.

Sorry to be so long winded....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 10:42 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #proven-pra #jobs #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers

Hi Murray

I think getting the ISO standard out was an important step. I think nursing the application of the standard and critically challenging misuse is another. I think more publications that bring research and practice closer together is another. Another is working with “real” professional institutions such as CILIP in the UK to extend the recognition for KM in organisational life, and better definition and oversight of professional competencies (e.g. CILIP has an active role in professional advocacy in government and has a professional development framework that mow incorporates KM competencies).

I think a tear-down and re-build of how and where KM is taught in universities is another, bigger task, longer term task that really needs further collapse than it has currently suffered before it can be catalysed (along with, some would argue, other forms of management education). In its current form much of it is just a patch job grafted onto LIS or IT focused programmes. It was a rapid improvisation by universities in the early 2000s that is now outliving its usefulness (I believe).

We all have small parts to play on a very big stage. Let’s look to where we have opportunities to keep nudging things in the right direction. 

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 13 May 2020, at 12:46 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:

I'm fine with that but the only KMers I know getting paid for that are academics, and this group complains when academics talk, so I'm confused as to how to evolve the group and KM.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: Murray Jennex <murphjen@...>
Cc: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 1:32 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

While that’s true Murray, my point (following Stephen) was that we have to think on a broader scale than of within organisations. My point about institutionalisation was at the societal level - as a profession, becoming embedded into social institutions and norms [as engineers, lawyers, accountants are].

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 4:28 PM, Murray Jennex <murphjen@...> wrote:

yes Patrick, it takes time to get KM institutionalized.  The disillusionment comes from having to take time to do something in organizations that often think only short term.  If we can get leaders to think a little longer that would help....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 12:52 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I feel your frustration Stephen. And these words resonated:

<<While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.>>

[Not that braggadocio has disappeared from our community]

However, I don’t think we are failing to make progress. It’s just slow to institutionalise a profession as young as we are. Theoretical frameworks are not enough. We haven’t yet mastered the art of the societal politics of KM. We have to be prepared to think in terms of decades, and looking after the continuity of our profession, helping our successors, and constantly hammering away at the same basic things.

I think we are making progress, painfully slow though it is. You are right to be impatient, of course. Impatience is what propels us forward. Patience is what keeps us from giving up. There you go, another contradiction we must embody.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 3:39 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,
Oh, I completely agree that KM is hard.
My frustration stems from the occasional feeling that people in the KM community have resigned themselves to the implementation of amateur-level KM with amateur-level knowledge of the discipline on the basis that it is better than having no KM at all.
KM should be at the absolute forefront of public discussions about the global COVID-19 response. What has played out across the world is absolutely not just luck (while still being a factor). We have the theoretical frameworks relating to complex adaptive systems, knowledge creation and diffusion, risk, trust, and communications to understand the problem and contribute to future solutions.
Yet I don't think I've heard KM mentioned even once in public discourse. Right now there is minimal understanding that this is at the very core of our discipline.

While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.
We have to work out how to address this lack of coherence as a discipline. Otherwise we're just going to spend the next 20 years talking to each other and not to the people who need to hear it.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 12/05/2020 3:59 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen

I don’t think hardness is really a factor in survival of KM functions. Lord knows, KM is hard.

Financial Management (and its embedded threadlets, financial management norms institutionalised into general management practice) have had 600 years to become institutionally and societally embedded. They are propped up and reinforced through pervasive laws, regulations and standards. Legally you can’t operate as a business of any size without this function. It has become a key mechanism in the whole capitalist way of creating and moving value around in society - and taxing and regulating value creation. This means you can fire any given CFO or accountant and hire another one to the same specification. Financial management has become mechanised to a large degree in many organisations. All of these factors act on its “indispensability” and none of them pertain to knowledge management at its current state of maturity. 

So while I think the metaphor of embeddedness does apply across management disciplines, and can be applied to knowledge management as to financial management, this metaphor does not extend to dispensability. KM just doesn’t have the same depth of institutional rootedness to compare with a function like FM. That’s why KM has to demonstrate value, repeatedly, win and retain support, repeatedly, play the political game, repeatedly, in addition to becoming embedded. In fact, I know of cases where over-successful embedding has rendered KM effectively invisible, and the phenomenon happens that Matt talks about - periodic loss of support, followed by reinvention of a new function a couple of years later.

Perhaps this was more to your point Stephen?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 1:10 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Murray,
I think it matters quite a lot in the context that this conversation arose, which was around KM jobs.
Similarly to engineering, Patrick made comments about the pervasiveness of "small f small m" financial management -- yet I see no signs of a world in which the CFO and accountants are all made redundant. Chartered professionals have reached a level of specialised expertise where there is a broad recognition that their skills cannot be easily replicated by a lay person. 
To be blunt, if "frankly KM isn't that hard" then we need to make it harder. Otherwise, we will continue to see dedicated KM roles being shed from companies en masse when there are economic downturns.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 11/05/2020 4:53 pm, Murray Jennex wrote:
I have worked with people who didn't know they were engineers (but its not real common).  I'm not sure why you are sensitive about this, that people can do KM without knowing they are doing KM.  The name KM came about in the late 90s with it being OM, organizational memory or perhaps OL, organizational learning before that.  Those practitioners didn't know they were doing KM until they embraced the term KM.  Managing knowledge is not something that KM invented, people have been managing knowledge for centuries without knowing they were doing KM.  Now I didn't say that people adopting a knowledge practice are knowledge managers, but they can be and are managers and frankly, smart people in any discipline can figure out how to adopt and implement good knowledge practices.  I won't say they are as good at as a KM professional but they get by.  This is not unique to the world as the world is full of amateur engineers, astronomers, photographers, farmers, financiers, etc.  Heck, even on this list I've seen many posters complain about doctoral level KM professionals who teach KM.  It sounds elitist to suggest that only KM professionals can do KM, frankly KM isn't that hard if you study the different disciplines that we combine and have the vision to see what needs to be done.  This is why we are seeing some KM positions eliminated even though we know we provide value.  Heck, we are seeing MBA enrollments decline because gifted amateurs such as Mark Cuban say you don't need to be a MBA professional to be a good business person; and to some degree he is correct.  Same applies to KM....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 10, 2020 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

Is there such a thing as an "embedded engineer"? If not, why not?
I have some issues with the idea that people "don't even know they are doing KM" unless people also "don't even know they are doing engineering".
I don't think workers who know how to assemble Ikea furniture "are" engineers, and I don't think people who informally adopt a sound KM practice within their teams "are" knowledge managers either.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 10/05/2020 6:24 am, Murray Jennex via groups.io wrote:
I understand your point Nick, but I look at embedded KM much like I would look at a embedded system, something that works but is buried in the innards of the system and is something nobody notices until it doesn't work.  I see embedded KM as KM built into the work practices: knowledge capture a part of the analysis of problems, knowledge sharing a part of the setup of how knowledge is saved and searched, collaboration with colleagues a part of the work culture and evaluation system, and etc.  You don't need a KM function to monitor this as monitoring is also embedded.  In these organizations they don't always even know they are doing KM, it is just good practice or common sense (I think this is something we have said as KMers for many years).  Where you do need some KM function is in governance of processes and data: mainly for ensuring knowledge alignment with strategic goals, incorporate process changes, and to anticipate future needs and process modifications.  How large this function is I'm not sure and it probably varies widely in practice.  How did embedded KM get there in the first place? That is where KM may have had a role (and I would agree it is done better if KM did have a role in initial design) but with knowledge workers it will happen even if there is no formal KM guidance as it is just good sense.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Milton <nick.milton@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sat, May 9, 2020 7:40 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I don’t think embedded KM means no KM department, its just that they have a different function – support, monitoring, coaching, training, measuring, rather than doing. .
 
After all, most organisations have embedded financial management, but still have financial professionals and a CFO. 
 
 
 
Nick Milton

 
 
From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Jones
Sent: 09 May 2020 15:09
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs
 
Rahul - sure, my ask is to understand the industries or sectors of the economy (or perhaps more broadly, the global organizational landscape, to include NGO/NFP's & Government agencies) where KM is successful. For me, with on-going threads about KM job losses, demise of KM, and the like, I'm wanting to learn whether success is tied to unique industry needs.

Bill - thanks again for these inputs.

Murray - the examples are helpful; in my work in utilities, I've learned that fault intolerance tends to show up as increased, very detailed processes and controls, where knowledge is clearly integral - so I see your point.

Nick - execellent chart !! and I was hoping this sort of analysis had been done.  Interesting that you show embedded KM as the ideal end state in an applied maturity model rather than an alternative approach to a functional "KM department".  Curious if there's another thread on KM maturity models - guessing yes? I'll check - 

Appreciate all the responses, you're definitely advancing my thinking - thanks much for taking time to weigh-in.

Chris 


<email footer small.jpeg>

<email footer small.jpeg>


Re: The KM Collection - easier access to best content #resources #search #curation

Murray Jennex
 

having the whole group view the discussion will generate more interest don't you think?


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Barfield <thomas.m.barfield@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 10:37 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] The KM Collection - easier access to best content - looking for volunteers

Stan – do we have a way to have a breakout discussion that is limited to a subset of the community who volunteers to check out the KM Collection?
 
Aprill – a you asked a great question I had not considered.  Let’s see if we can have a sub-discussion space. 
Tom
 
 
 
From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Aprill Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:32 AM
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] The KM Collection - easier access to best content - looking for volunteers
 
Hi Tom,

Are you interested in us sharing our feedback  in the group or prefer directly to you?



--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
KM Consulting & KCS Training
M: +61 (0)400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

John Lewis
 

Another deep and fantastic thread on the nature of knowledge and future of knowledge management. And some fantastic posts: "we can help create what is coming next." (Nancy Dixon). But I actually think that we are the "key" group capable of creating what is coming next. The fourth industrial revolution is based on "intelligence" itself as the foundational capacity within organizations. Some of us have been moving towards this challenge for a long time: “An organization’s knowledge is of less significance than are the processes needed to continuously revise or create knowledge” (Nancy Dixon, 1999). I agree. Thank you Nancy!

I believe we are currently too focused on "knowledge" instead of the learning processes that create it. All knowledge is just an answer to a question. We should teach questioning skills before knowledge. And start early. "But some teachers may feel that providing students with questioning skills will undermine the authority they need to deliver the answers in the classroom." (J Lewis, Story Thinking)

"Without an underlying map, we are lost, in geography and mental models." The current typical change model is prescriptive, with steps to follow, but without a descriptive foundational inference -- meaning they are just a craft, without sensemaking or understanding. "This is like getting some navigational directions to memorize without a map to understand the overall layout of the landscape, how to reroute when the directions stop working, or where the directional steps originated from." My latest research and book is based on the study of story structures as organizational operational and governance models (beyond storytelling) which compares 30 popular business and learning models against the sensemaking of the story thinking cycle - "Story Thinking: Transforming Organizations for the Fourth Industrial Revolution". I'm not here to promote a book but I would like to promote the idea that terms like sensemaking, learning, and story thinking may be needed to move beyond the current focus on the term "knowledge".

John Lewis, Ed.D.
John@...


On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:24 PM Nancy Dixon <nancydixon@...> wrote:
Taking the long view, I think KM will survive, but perhaps not in its current configuration nor with the “KM” label. 
Starting with Drucker's, Post-Capitalist Society,1993 and Weick's, Sensemaking in Organizations, 1995 there has been a growing understanding of the value of knowledge to organizations.  I was involved in Organizational Learning  (Dixon, The Organizational Learning Cycle, 1996), conversely called, The Learning Organization (Senge, The Firth Discipline, 1994) before the talk started about KM. From my perspective Organizational Learning became relabeled as KM.  

Even now, in organizations we see new labels being taken up that privileging knowledge.  Most of these labels use terms like “digital,” ”intelligence" or “learning" in some form. Already, many of us in SIKM are specialized in some aspect of KM, we are experts in Sharepoint, Big data, SNA, facilitation. My own practice has long been associated with designing conversations that both develop and transfer knowledge.

I think the importance and emphasis on knowledge will continue, but that we cannot hold the label too closely, or think of KM as something that must be a department or a separate part of the organization. It was helpful to start that way, with a dedicated group of smart KMer's thinking about how to make the best use of an organization’s knowledge. But we may be nearing the end of that time and we can help create what is coming next. Maybe something that moves organizations into new organizational structures with paradigms based on our joint intelligence. (I’m thinking of Laloux’s Reinventing Organizations.)  It is exciting to think about what is possible with this valuable commodity to which we are all dedicated. 

Nancy
 


On May 12, 2020, at 3:32 AM, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

While that’s true Murray, my point (following Stephen) was that we have to think on a broader scale than of within organisations. My point about institutionalisation was at the societal level - as a profession, becoming embedded into social institutions and norms [as engineers, lawyers, accountants are].

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 4:28 PM, Murray Jennex <murphjen@...> wrote:

yes Patrick, it takes time to get KM institutionalized.  The disillusionment comes from having to take time to do something in organizations that often think only short term.  If we can get leaders to think a little longer that would help....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 12:52 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I feel your frustration Stephen. And these words resonated:

<<While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.>>

[Not that braggadocio has disappeared from our community]

However, I don’t think we are failing to make progress. It’s just slow to institutionalise a profession as young as we are. Theoretical frameworks are not enough. We haven’t yet mastered the art of the societal politics of KM. We have to be prepared to think in terms of decades, and looking after the continuity of our profession, helping our successors, and constantly hammering away at the same basic things.

I think we are making progress, painfully slow though it is. You are right to be impatient, of course. Impatience is what propels us forward. Patience is what keeps us from giving up. There you go, another contradiction we must embody.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 3:39 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,
Oh, I completely agree that KM is hard.
My frustration stems from the occasional feeling that people in the KM community have resigned themselves to the implementation of amateur-level KM with amateur-level knowledge of the discipline on the basis that it is better than having no KM at all.
KM should be at the absolute forefront of public discussions about the global COVID-19 response. What has played out across the world is absolutely not just luck (while still being a factor). We have the theoretical frameworks relating to complex adaptive systems, knowledge creation and diffusion, risk, trust, and communications to understand the problem and contribute to future solutions.
Yet I don't think I've heard KM mentioned even once in public discourse. Right now there is minimal understanding that this is at the very core of our discipline.

While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.
We have to work out how to address this lack of coherence as a discipline. Otherwise we're just going to spend the next 20 years talking to each other and not to the people who need to hear it.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 12/05/2020 3:59 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen

I don’t think hardness is really a factor in survival of KM functions. Lord knows, KM is hard.

Financial Management (and its embedded threadlets, financial management norms institutionalised into general management practice) have had 600 years to become institutionally and societally embedded. They are propped up and reinforced through pervasive laws, regulations and standards. Legally you can’t operate as a business of any size without this function. It has become a key mechanism in the whole capitalist way of creating and moving value around in society - and taxing and regulating value creation. This means you can fire any given CFO or accountant and hire another one to the same specification. Financial management has become mechanised to a large degree in many organisations. All of these factors act on its “indispensability” and none of them pertain to knowledge management at its current state of maturity. 

So while I think the metaphor of embeddedness does apply across management disciplines, and can be applied to knowledge management as to financial management, this metaphor does not extend to dispensability. KM just doesn’t have the same depth of institutional rootedness to compare with a function like FM. That’s why KM has to demonstrate value, repeatedly, win and retain support, repeatedly, play the political game, repeatedly, in addition to becoming embedded. In fact, I know of cases where over-successful embedding has rendered KM effectively invisible, and the phenomenon happens that Matt talks about - periodic loss of support, followed by reinvention of a new function a couple of years later.

Perhaps this was more to your point Stephen?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 1:10 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Murray,
I think it matters quite a lot in the context that this conversation arose, which was around KM jobs.
Similarly to engineering, Patrick made comments about the pervasiveness of "small f small m" financial management -- yet I see no signs of a world in which the CFO and accountants are all made redundant. Chartered professionals have reached a level of specialised expertise where there is a broad recognition that their skills cannot be easily replicated by a lay person. 
To be blunt, if "frankly KM isn't that hard" then we need to make it harder. Otherwise, we will continue to see dedicated KM roles being shed from companies en masse when there are economic downturns.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 11/05/2020 4:53 pm, Murray Jennex wrote:
I have worked with people who didn't know they were engineers (but its not real common).  I'm not sure why you are sensitive about this, that people can do KM without knowing they are doing KM.  The name KM came about in the late 90s with it being OM, organizational memory or perhaps OL, organizational learning before that.  Those practitioners didn't know they were doing KM until they embraced the term KM.  Managing knowledge is not something that KM invented, people have been managing knowledge for centuries without knowing they were doing KM.  Now I didn't say that people adopting a knowledge practice are knowledge managers, but they can be and are managers and frankly, smart people in any discipline can figure out how to adopt and implement good knowledge practices.  I won't say they are as good at as a KM professional but they get by.  This is not unique to the world as the world is full of amateur engineers, astronomers, photographers, farmers, financiers, etc.  Heck, even on this list I've seen many posters complain about doctoral level KM professionals who teach KM.  It sounds elitist to suggest that only KM professionals can do KM, frankly KM isn't that hard if you study the different disciplines that we combine and have the vision to see what needs to be done.  This is why we are seeing some KM positions eliminated even though we know we provide value.  Heck, we are seeing MBA enrollments decline because gifted amateurs such as Mark Cuban say you don't need to be a MBA professional to be a good business person; and to some degree he is correct.  Same applies to KM....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 10, 2020 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

Is there such a thing as an "embedded engineer"? If not, why not?
I have some issues with the idea that people "don't even know they are doing KM" unless people also "don't even know they are doing engineering".
I don't think workers who know how to assemble Ikea furniture "are" engineers, and I don't think people who informally adopt a sound KM practice within their teams "are" knowledge managers either.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 10/05/2020 6:24 am, Murray Jennex via groups.io wrote:
I understand your point Nick, but I look at embedded KM much like I would look at a embedded system, something that works but is buried in the innards of the system and is something nobody notices until it doesn't work.  I see embedded KM as KM built into the work practices: knowledge capture a part of the analysis of problems, knowledge sharing a part of the setup of how knowledge is saved and searched, collaboration with colleagues a part of the work culture and evaluation system, and etc.  You don't need a KM function to monitor this as monitoring is also embedded.  In these organizations they don't always even know they are doing KM, it is just good practice or common sense (I think this is something we have said as KMers for many years).  Where you do need some KM function is in governance of processes and data: mainly for ensuring knowledge alignment with strategic goals, incorporate process changes, and to anticipate future needs and process modifications.  How large this function is I'm not sure and it probably varies widely in practice.  How did embedded KM get there in the first place? That is where KM may have had a role (and I would agree it is done better if KM did have a role in initial design) but with knowledge workers it will happen even if there is no formal KM guidance as it is just good sense.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Milton <nick.milton@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sat, May 9, 2020 7:40 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I don’t think embedded KM means no KM department, its just that they have a different function – support, monitoring, coaching, training, measuring, rather than doing. .
 
After all, most organisations have embedded financial management, but still have financial professionals and a CFO. 
 
 
 
Nick Milton

 
 
From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Jones
Sent: 09 May 2020 15:09
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs
 
Rahul - sure, my ask is to understand the industries or sectors of the economy (or perhaps more broadly, the global organizational landscape, to include NGO/NFP's & Government agencies) where KM is successful. For me, with on-going threads about KM job losses, demise of KM, and the like, I'm wanting to learn whether success is tied to unique industry needs.

Bill - thanks again for these inputs.

Murray - the examples are helpful; in my work in utilities, I've learned that fault intolerance tends to show up as increased, very detailed processes and controls, where knowledge is clearly integral - so I see your point.

Nick - execellent chart !! and I was hoping this sort of analysis had been done.  Interesting that you show embedded KM as the ideal end state in an applied maturity model rather than an alternative approach to a functional "KM department".  Curious if there's another thread on KM maturity models - guessing yes? I'll check - 

Appreciate all the responses, you're definitely advancing my thinking - thanks much for taking time to weigh-in.

Chris 


<email footer small.jpeg>



Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Murray

I think getting the ISO standard out was an important step. I think nursing the application of the standard and critically challenging misuse is another. I think more publications that bring research and practice closer together is another. Another is working with “real” professional institutions such as CILIP in the UK to extend the recognition for KM in organisational life, and better definition and oversight of professional competencies (e.g. CILIP has an active role in professional advocacy in government and has a professional development framework that mow incorporates KM competencies).

I think a tear-down and re-build of how and where KM is taught in universities is another, bigger task, longer term task that really needs further collapse than it has currently suffered before it can be catalysed (along with, some would argue, other forms of management education). In its current form much of it is just a patch job grafted onto LIS or IT focused programmes. It was a rapid improvisation by universities in the early 2000s that is now outliving its usefulness (I believe).

We all have small parts to play on a very big stage. Let’s look to where we have opportunities to keep nudging things in the right direction. 

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 13 May 2020, at 12:46 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:

I'm fine with that but the only KMers I know getting paid for that are academics, and this group complains when academics talk, so I'm confused as to how to evolve the group and KM.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: Murray Jennex <murphjen@...>
Cc: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 1:32 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

While that’s true Murray, my point (following Stephen) was that we have to think on a broader scale than of within organisations. My point about institutionalisation was at the societal level - as a profession, becoming embedded into social institutions and norms [as engineers, lawyers, accountants are].

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 4:28 PM, Murray Jennex <murphjen@...> wrote:

yes Patrick, it takes time to get KM institutionalized.  The disillusionment comes from having to take time to do something in organizations that often think only short term.  If we can get leaders to think a little longer that would help....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 12:52 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I feel your frustration Stephen. And these words resonated:

<<While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.>>

[Not that braggadocio has disappeared from our community]

However, I don’t think we are failing to make progress. It’s just slow to institutionalise a profession as young as we are. Theoretical frameworks are not enough. We haven’t yet mastered the art of the societal politics of KM. We have to be prepared to think in terms of decades, and looking after the continuity of our profession, helping our successors, and constantly hammering away at the same basic things.

I think we are making progress, painfully slow though it is. You are right to be impatient, of course. Impatience is what propels us forward. Patience is what keeps us from giving up. There you go, another contradiction we must embody.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 3:39 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,
Oh, I completely agree that KM is hard.
My frustration stems from the occasional feeling that people in the KM community have resigned themselves to the implementation of amateur-level KM with amateur-level knowledge of the discipline on the basis that it is better than having no KM at all.
KM should be at the absolute forefront of public discussions about the global COVID-19 response. What has played out across the world is absolutely not just luck (while still being a factor). We have the theoretical frameworks relating to complex adaptive systems, knowledge creation and diffusion, risk, trust, and communications to understand the problem and contribute to future solutions.
Yet I don't think I've heard KM mentioned even once in public discourse. Right now there is minimal understanding that this is at the very core of our discipline.

While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.
We have to work out how to address this lack of coherence as a discipline. Otherwise we're just going to spend the next 20 years talking to each other and not to the people who need to hear it.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 12/05/2020 3:59 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen

I don’t think hardness is really a factor in survival of KM functions. Lord knows, KM is hard.

Financial Management (and its embedded threadlets, financial management norms institutionalised into general management practice) have had 600 years to become institutionally and societally embedded. They are propped up and reinforced through pervasive laws, regulations and standards. Legally you can’t operate as a business of any size without this function. It has become a key mechanism in the whole capitalist way of creating and moving value around in society - and taxing and regulating value creation. This means you can fire any given CFO or accountant and hire another one to the same specification. Financial management has become mechanised to a large degree in many organisations. All of these factors act on its “indispensability” and none of them pertain to knowledge management at its current state of maturity. 

So while I think the metaphor of embeddedness does apply across management disciplines, and can be applied to knowledge management as to financial management, this metaphor does not extend to dispensability. KM just doesn’t have the same depth of institutional rootedness to compare with a function like FM. That’s why KM has to demonstrate value, repeatedly, win and retain support, repeatedly, play the political game, repeatedly, in addition to becoming embedded. In fact, I know of cases where over-successful embedding has rendered KM effectively invisible, and the phenomenon happens that Matt talks about - periodic loss of support, followed by reinvention of a new function a couple of years later.

Perhaps this was more to your point Stephen?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 1:10 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Murray,
I think it matters quite a lot in the context that this conversation arose, which was around KM jobs.
Similarly to engineering, Patrick made comments about the pervasiveness of "small f small m" financial management -- yet I see no signs of a world in which the CFO and accountants are all made redundant. Chartered professionals have reached a level of specialised expertise where there is a broad recognition that their skills cannot be easily replicated by a lay person. 
To be blunt, if "frankly KM isn't that hard" then we need to make it harder. Otherwise, we will continue to see dedicated KM roles being shed from companies en masse when there are economic downturns.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 11/05/2020 4:53 pm, Murray Jennex wrote:
I have worked with people who didn't know they were engineers (but its not real common).  I'm not sure why you are sensitive about this, that people can do KM without knowing they are doing KM.  The name KM came about in the late 90s with it being OM, organizational memory or perhaps OL, organizational learning before that.  Those practitioners didn't know they were doing KM until they embraced the term KM.  Managing knowledge is not something that KM invented, people have been managing knowledge for centuries without knowing they were doing KM.  Now I didn't say that people adopting a knowledge practice are knowledge managers, but they can be and are managers and frankly, smart people in any discipline can figure out how to adopt and implement good knowledge practices.  I won't say they are as good at as a KM professional but they get by.  This is not unique to the world as the world is full of amateur engineers, astronomers, photographers, farmers, financiers, etc.  Heck, even on this list I've seen many posters complain about doctoral level KM professionals who teach KM.  It sounds elitist to suggest that only KM professionals can do KM, frankly KM isn't that hard if you study the different disciplines that we combine and have the vision to see what needs to be done.  This is why we are seeing some KM positions eliminated even though we know we provide value.  Heck, we are seeing MBA enrollments decline because gifted amateurs such as Mark Cuban say you don't need to be a MBA professional to be a good business person; and to some degree he is correct.  Same applies to KM....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 10, 2020 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

Is there such a thing as an "embedded engineer"? If not, why not?
I have some issues with the idea that people "don't even know they are doing KM" unless people also "don't even know they are doing engineering".
I don't think workers who know how to assemble Ikea furniture "are" engineers, and I don't think people who informally adopt a sound KM practice within their teams "are" knowledge managers either.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 10/05/2020 6:24 am, Murray Jennex via groups.io wrote:
I understand your point Nick, but I look at embedded KM much like I would look at a embedded system, something that works but is buried in the innards of the system and is something nobody notices until it doesn't work.  I see embedded KM as KM built into the work practices: knowledge capture a part of the analysis of problems, knowledge sharing a part of the setup of how knowledge is saved and searched, collaboration with colleagues a part of the work culture and evaluation system, and etc.  You don't need a KM function to monitor this as monitoring is also embedded.  In these organizations they don't always even know they are doing KM, it is just good practice or common sense (I think this is something we have said as KMers for many years).  Where you do need some KM function is in governance of processes and data: mainly for ensuring knowledge alignment with strategic goals, incorporate process changes, and to anticipate future needs and process modifications.  How large this function is I'm not sure and it probably varies widely in practice.  How did embedded KM get there in the first place? That is where KM may have had a role (and I would agree it is done better if KM did have a role in initial design) but with knowledge workers it will happen even if there is no formal KM guidance as it is just good sense.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Milton <nick.milton@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sat, May 9, 2020 7:40 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I don’t think embedded KM means no KM department, its just that they have a different function – support, monitoring, coaching, training, measuring, rather than doing. .
 
After all, most organisations have embedded financial management, but still have financial professionals and a CFO. 
 
 
 
Nick Milton

 
 
From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Jones
Sent: 09 May 2020 15:09
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs
 
Rahul - sure, my ask is to understand the industries or sectors of the economy (or perhaps more broadly, the global organizational landscape, to include NGO/NFP's & Government agencies) where KM is successful. For me, with on-going threads about KM job losses, demise of KM, and the like, I'm wanting to learn whether success is tied to unique industry needs.

Bill - thanks again for these inputs.

Murray - the examples are helpful; in my work in utilities, I've learned that fault intolerance tends to show up as increased, very detailed processes and controls, where knowledge is clearly integral - so I see your point.

Nick - execellent chart !! and I was hoping this sort of analysis had been done.  Interesting that you show embedded KM as the ideal end state in an applied maturity model rather than an alternative approach to a functional "KM department".  Curious if there's another thread on KM maturity models - guessing yes? I'll check - 

Appreciate all the responses, you're definitely advancing my thinking - thanks much for taking time to weigh-in.

Chris 


<email footer small.jpeg>

<email footer small.jpeg>


Re: The KM Collection - easier access to best content #resources #search #curation

Tom Barfield
 

Stan – do we have a way to have a breakout discussion that is limited to a subset of the community who volunteers to check out the KM Collection?

 

Aprill – a you asked a great question I had not considered.  Let’s see if we can have a sub-discussion space. 

Tom

 

 

 

From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Aprill Allen
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 12:32 AM
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] The KM Collection - easier access to best content - looking for volunteers

 

Hi Tom,

Are you interested in us sharing our feedback  in the group or prefer directly to you?



--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
KM Consulting & KCS Training
M: +61 (0)400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


Re: The KM Collection - easier access to best content #resources #search #curation

Aprill Allen
 

Hi Tom,

Are you interested in us sharing our feedback  in the group or prefer directly to you?



--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
KM Consulting & KCS Training
M: +61 (0)400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

Aprill Allen
 

I think we have to embrace that KM manifests in many different ways.

I see unification as a possibility in a foundational sense - the practices. If academics continue researching those practices and efficacy in different contexts, it gives the professional world an excellent ground on which to continue applying relevant practices, developing methodologies, establishing professional certification paths and so on. The professional world (i.e. consultants and practitioners) is and has always been responsible for telling the stories that demonstrate KMs contribution to the desired outcome, whether that outcome is digital transformation of some sort, building a learning organisation, capturing and disseminating verified COVID knowledge, etc etc. The potential of our community, IMO, is the opportunity to parse the academic research together, and formulate what that means in practical terms for the people who want the outcomes we work for. (This bit here is where the group gets lost, because we don't have a system or process for completing that translation. A challenge may kick off, but we don't have a trade magazine or professional journal, or association publication that could facilitate the ongoing peer review in a structured way.) Then it's up to each of us to take that message to our respective specialised markets.

The key here, is telling the stories that demonstrate KMs contribution to the desired outcome. We're great at talking to each other, but I don't think we're banging the drum loudly enough out there in the world. There aren't enough conference presentations at non-KM events that explicitly name knowledge management and link it to the value derived, for example. This is why Nick Knoco's curated ROI content is so useful. The more we go out there talking about and explicitly naming knowledge management at agile events, tech events, IT events, HR events......, and drawing the link between KM and the respective specialisation, whatever it is, the higher its profile will get.




--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
KM Consulting & KCS Training
M: +61 (0)400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

Murray Jennex
 

I'm fine with that but the only KMers I know getting paid for that are academics, and this group complains when academics talk, so I'm confused as to how to evolve the group and KM.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: Murray Jennex <murphjen@...>
Cc: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 1:32 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

While that’s true Murray, my point (following Stephen) was that we have to think on a broader scale than of within organisations. My point about institutionalisation was at the societal level - as a profession, becoming embedded into social institutions and norms [as engineers, lawyers, accountants are].

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 4:28 PM, Murray Jennex <murphjen@...> wrote:

yes Patrick, it takes time to get KM institutionalized.  The disillusionment comes from having to take time to do something in organizations that often think only short term.  If we can get leaders to think a little longer that would help....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 12:52 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I feel your frustration Stephen. And these words resonated:

<<While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.>>

[Not that braggadocio has disappeared from our community]

However, I don’t think we are failing to make progress. It’s just slow to institutionalise a profession as young as we are. Theoretical frameworks are not enough. We haven’t yet mastered the art of the societal politics of KM. We have to be prepared to think in terms of decades, and looking after the continuity of our profession, helping our successors, and constantly hammering away at the same basic things.

I think we are making progress, painfully slow though it is. You are right to be impatient, of course. Impatience is what propels us forward. Patience is what keeps us from giving up. There you go, another contradiction we must embody.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 3:39 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,
Oh, I completely agree that KM is hard.
My frustration stems from the occasional feeling that people in the KM community have resigned themselves to the implementation of amateur-level KM with amateur-level knowledge of the discipline on the basis that it is better than having no KM at all.
KM should be at the absolute forefront of public discussions about the global COVID-19 response. What has played out across the world is absolutely not just luck (while still being a factor). We have the theoretical frameworks relating to complex adaptive systems, knowledge creation and diffusion, risk, trust, and communications to understand the problem and contribute to future solutions.
Yet I don't think I've heard KM mentioned even once in public discourse. Right now there is minimal understanding that this is at the very core of our discipline.

While the braggadocious over-promising and under-delivery of the 90s and oughts led to a serious credibility problem for KM, now we are afraid to promise much of anything at all. Worse: since there is no common underpinning of skills as a practice, we can't even point to successes in one organisation as a reasonable predictor of likely success in another.
We have to work out how to address this lack of coherence as a discipline. Otherwise we're just going to spend the next 20 years talking to each other and not to the people who need to hear it.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 12/05/2020 3:59 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen

I don’t think hardness is really a factor in survival of KM functions. Lord knows, KM is hard.

Financial Management (and its embedded threadlets, financial management norms institutionalised into general management practice) have had 600 years to become institutionally and societally embedded. They are propped up and reinforced through pervasive laws, regulations and standards. Legally you can’t operate as a business of any size without this function. It has become a key mechanism in the whole capitalist way of creating and moving value around in society - and taxing and regulating value creation. This means you can fire any given CFO or accountant and hire another one to the same specification. Financial management has become mechanised to a large degree in many organisations. All of these factors act on its “indispensability” and none of them pertain to knowledge management at its current state of maturity. 

So while I think the metaphor of embeddedness does apply across management disciplines, and can be applied to knowledge management as to financial management, this metaphor does not extend to dispensability. KM just doesn’t have the same depth of institutional rootedness to compare with a function like FM. That’s why KM has to demonstrate value, repeatedly, win and retain support, repeatedly, play the political game, repeatedly, in addition to becoming embedded. In fact, I know of cases where over-successful embedding has rendered KM effectively invisible, and the phenomenon happens that Matt talks about - periodic loss of support, followed by reinvention of a new function a couple of years later.

Perhaps this was more to your point Stephen?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 12 May 2020, at 1:10 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Murray,
I think it matters quite a lot in the context that this conversation arose, which was around KM jobs.
Similarly to engineering, Patrick made comments about the pervasiveness of "small f small m" financial management -- yet I see no signs of a world in which the CFO and accountants are all made redundant. Chartered professionals have reached a level of specialised expertise where there is a broad recognition that their skills cannot be easily replicated by a lay person. 
To be blunt, if "frankly KM isn't that hard" then we need to make it harder. Otherwise, we will continue to see dedicated KM roles being shed from companies en masse when there are economic downturns.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 11/05/2020 4:53 pm, Murray Jennex wrote:
I have worked with people who didn't know they were engineers (but its not real common).  I'm not sure why you are sensitive about this, that people can do KM without knowing they are doing KM.  The name KM came about in the late 90s with it being OM, organizational memory or perhaps OL, organizational learning before that.  Those practitioners didn't know they were doing KM until they embraced the term KM.  Managing knowledge is not something that KM invented, people have been managing knowledge for centuries without knowing they were doing KM.  Now I didn't say that people adopting a knowledge practice are knowledge managers, but they can be and are managers and frankly, smart people in any discipline can figure out how to adopt and implement good knowledge practices.  I won't say they are as good at as a KM professional but they get by.  This is not unique to the world as the world is full of amateur engineers, astronomers, photographers, farmers, financiers, etc.  Heck, even on this list I've seen many posters complain about doctoral level KM professionals who teach KM.  It sounds elitist to suggest that only KM professionals can do KM, frankly KM isn't that hard if you study the different disciplines that we combine and have the vision to see what needs to be done.  This is why we are seeing some KM positions eliminated even though we know we provide value.  Heck, we are seeing MBA enrollments decline because gifted amateurs such as Mark Cuban say you don't need to be a MBA professional to be a good business person; and to some degree he is correct.  Same applies to KM....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 10, 2020 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

Is there such a thing as an "embedded engineer"? If not, why not?
I have some issues with the idea that people "don't even know they are doing KM" unless people also "don't even know they are doing engineering".
I don't think workers who know how to assemble Ikea furniture "are" engineers, and I don't think people who informally adopt a sound KM practice within their teams "are" knowledge managers either.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 10/05/2020 6:24 am, Murray Jennex via groups.io wrote:
I understand your point Nick, but I look at embedded KM much like I would look at a embedded system, something that works but is buried in the innards of the system and is something nobody notices until it doesn't work.  I see embedded KM as KM built into the work practices: knowledge capture a part of the analysis of problems, knowledge sharing a part of the setup of how knowledge is saved and searched, collaboration with colleagues a part of the work culture and evaluation system, and etc.  You don't need a KM function to monitor this as monitoring is also embedded.  In these organizations they don't always even know they are doing KM, it is just good practice or common sense (I think this is something we have said as KMers for many years).  Where you do need some KM function is in governance of processes and data: mainly for ensuring knowledge alignment with strategic goals, incorporate process changes, and to anticipate future needs and process modifications.  How large this function is I'm not sure and it probably varies widely in practice.  How did embedded KM get there in the first place? That is where KM may have had a role (and I would agree it is done better if KM did have a role in initial design) but with knowledge workers it will happen even if there is no formal KM guidance as it is just good sense.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Milton <nick.milton@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Sat, May 9, 2020 7:40 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs

I don’t think embedded KM means no KM department, its just that they have a different function – support, monitoring, coaching, training, measuring, rather than doing. .
 
After all, most organisations have embedded financial management, but still have financial professionals and a CFO. 
 
 
 
Nick Milton

 
 
From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Jones
Sent: 09 May 2020 15:09
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #discussion-starter #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra ctice #jobs
 
Rahul - sure, my ask is to understand the industries or sectors of the economy (or perhaps more broadly, the global organizational landscape, to include NGO/NFP's & Government agencies) where KM is successful. For me, with on-going threads about KM job losses, demise of KM, and the like, I'm wanting to learn whether success is tied to unique industry needs.

Bill - thanks again for these inputs.

Murray - the examples are helpful; in my work in utilities, I've learned that fault intolerance tends to show up as increased, very detailed processes and controls, where knowledge is clearly integral - so I see your point.

Nick - execellent chart !! and I was hoping this sort of analysis had been done.  Interesting that you show embedded KM as the ideal end state in an applied maturity model rather than an alternative approach to a functional "KM department".  Curious if there's another thread on KM maturity models - guessing yes? I'll check - 

Appreciate all the responses, you're definitely advancing my thinking - thanks much for taking time to weigh-in.

Chris 


<email footer small.jpeg>


Re: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #future-of-work #state-of-KM #KMers #discussion-starter

T J Elliott
 

There's not much for me to add to the insight and wisdom already shared here. I would repeat and reemphasize Nancy's point: "But we may be nearing the end of that time and we can help create what is coming next. " All of the divisions and demarcations -- learning, knowledge, organizational development, even human resources -- were constructed, not ordained. It is difficult to shift minds, but not impossible. The conversations in this group suggest to me a very good start.


Re: The KM Collection - easier access to best content #resources #search #curation

Cindy Young
 

Tom,

I signed up to check it out and got an error message, but I got in by clicking another link in the error message.  I don't think that's how it should work, but I got in and will provide you feedback probably in the next week.

Regards,
Cindy

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:32 PM Tom Barfield <thomas.m.barfield@...> wrote:

I created The KM Collection to make it easier to find information on knowledge and collaboration. Please consider giving The KM Collection a try. I am looking for feedback on benefits of the collection for broad use by KM professionals and feedback on the capability itself.  The collection is hosted on the Keeeb Intelligence Platform - a start-up I joined last Fall.  

What's in it for you?

  • Improved findability of knowledge resources.  When you search in Google, the Keeeb Discovery search will appear in the right pane performing your search in key knowledge sites. Sites currently in scope include the SIKM forum, APQC, Gurteen, Knoco, the KM Collection, and others.
  • Browse the curated folders of the best knowledge from across the Internet (I could use some help in improving the curation)
  • Create your own folders for your own research

Click here to learn more and decide if you would like to participate.

During next week's monthly SIKM call I plan to lead a discussion on what it can mean to Navigate Knowledge to the User.  This is the vision for Keeeb.  I hope you will join me and share your ideas.

Note that as a longtime member of the SIKM forum I am trying to be cautious about come across as "salesy" in inviting you to check out the KM Collection and in the monthly call next week. Please don't hesitate to let me know (
thomas.m.barfield@...) if you feel I am going over a line.

Thanks,
Tom



--
Dr. Cindy Young, PMP, LSS MBB, CMQ/OE


Re: The KM Collection - easier access to best content #resources #search #curation

Aprill Allen
 

Hi Tom,

Thanks for sharing. I don't think you've overstepped, but I appreciate the clear declaration of involvement. I've gone ahead and signed up, but there's an internal server error when I try to activate the account.  :)

Otherwise, I'm looking forward to trying it out.

--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 7:32 AM Tom Barfield <thomas.m.barfield@...> wrote:

I created The KM Collection to make it easier to find information on knowledge and collaboration. Please consider giving The KM Collection a try. I am looking for feedback on benefits of the collection for broad use by KM professionals and feedback on the capability itself.  The collection is hosted on the Keeeb Intelligence Platform - a start-up I joined last Fall.  

What's in it for you?

  • Improved findability of knowledge resources.  When you search in Google, the Keeeb Discovery search will appear in the right pane performing your search in key knowledge sites. Sites currently in scope include the SIKM forum, APQC, Gurteen, Knoco, the KM Collection, and others.
  • Browse the curated folders of the best knowledge from across the Internet (I could use some help in improving the curation)
  • Create your own folders for your own research

Click here to learn more and decide if you would like to participate.

During next week's monthly SIKM call I plan to lead a discussion on what it can mean to Navigate Knowledge to the User.  This is the vision for Keeeb.  I hope you will join me and share your ideas.

Note that as a longtime member of the SIKM forum I am trying to be cautious about come across as "salesy" in inviting you to check out the KM Collection and in the monthly call next week. Please don't hesitate to let me know (
thomas.m.barfield@...) if you feel I am going over a line.

Thanks,
Tom

1921 - 1940 of 9474