Date   

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

Patrick Lambe
 

Tom, Tom, did ye not see the wink?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 15 May 2020, at 11:35 PM, Tom Reamy <kapsgro@...> wrote:

Patrick,
 
“stifle emergence” – I disagree.  If you combine the glossary/taxonomy/knowledge graph with the text analytics capabilities of auto-categorization and data extraction, you can explore and capture new ideas and topics – and both expand the new ideas and integrate them with existing concepts.  
 
Tom
 
 
<image001.png>
Tom Reamy
Chief Knowledge Architect
Author: Deep Text
KAPS Group, LLC
510-922-9554 (O)
510-333-2458 (M)
 
From: SIKM@groups.io [mailto:SIKM@groups.io] On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 6:30 PM
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward?
 
On #5, I think a thesaurus-cum-glossary or at most a knowledge graph.. a taxonomy would stifle emergence ;)
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<image002.jpg>



twitter: @plambesg


Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
 
On 15 May 2020, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:
 
Hi Patrick,
I see your point on 4, and would be happy to explore alternative structures. My main objective wasn't to put the knowledge of certain people on a pedestal but to provide a stronger scaffolding for respected figures in the community to have referred authority to start conversations and drive awareness in the global community. How would you feel about an elected "Council of Stewards" or similar?
On 5, I wonder if there are ways to encourage eventual convergence while recognising the need (right now) for divergent exploration of "what is KM anyway" through better labelling of our various "schools of thought". A taxonomy even ;-)
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/05/2020 9:48 am, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen 
 
I’m with you on items 1-3.
 
On items 4-5 we need greater depth and diversity I think, we are not yet far enough out of the “Age of Braggadocio”. For item 4 we need more diversity of communities in place, the fewer there are, the more dependent any “learned society” will be on the personalities at the core. I’d give it another 20 years.
 
For item 5, as we are very much in a complex space, we need to feel our way rather than to design our way - which is to say every designed effort helps, but we need diversity of effort and perspective for something durable to emerge.
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg> 



twitter: @plambesg


Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
 
On 13 May 2020, at 10:31 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:
 
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

<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 
 
 
 
 



Re: Are knowledge managers losing jobs right now? #discussion-starter #KMers

Rahul Lama
 

Hi Pavel and fellow members,

Here is a link to a KM job opportunity with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - https://gatesfoundation.wd1.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/Gates/job/Seattle-WA/Senior-Solutions-Architect--Knowledge-Management_B014700 

May be of interest to some members here.

Regards,
Rahul
Mumbai, India


Re: Because You Need To Know - Gurteen (2) #podcast

Dan Ranta
 

Great podcast Edwin.  Thanks for sharing your conversation with David.  Thought-provoking.  Dan


On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:13 AM Edwin K. Morrris <President@...> wrote:

The new way we toil and labor; how knowledge management is changing the interplay between society and the on ramp to work life. David Gurteen shares his view from the UK.

Enjoy this just release podcast.

https://lnkd.in/eTAC8ri

 

 

 

Check out our latest podcast:  Because you need to know        


Edwin K. Morris
President and Founder of Pioneer Knowledge Services

Official Trademark PKS Logo 45x45

What is Knowledge Management?

Office 716.995.4461

234.542.5836 fax

https://pioneer-ks.org/  

 


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

Tom Reamy
 

Patrick,

 

“stifle emergence” – I disagree.  If you combine the glossary/taxonomy/knowledge graph with the text analytics capabilities of auto-categorization and data extraction, you can explore and capture new ideas and topics – and both expand the new ideas and integrate them with existing concepts. 

 

Tom

 

 

Tom Reamy

Chief Knowledge Architect

Author: Deep Text

KAPS Group, LLC

www.kapsgroup.com

510-922-9554 (O)

510-333-2458 (M)

 

From: SIKM@groups.io [mailto:SIKM@groups.io] On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 6:30 PM
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward?

 

On #5, I think a thesaurus-cum-glossary or at most a knowledge graph.. a taxonomy would stifle emergence ;)

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383





twitter: @plambesg



Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 15 May 2020, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

 

Hi Patrick,

I see your point on 4, and would be happy to explore alternative structures. My main objective wasn't to put the knowledge of certain people on a pedestal but to provide a stronger scaffolding for respected figures in the community to have referred authority to start conversations and drive awareness in the global community. How would you feel about an elected "Council of Stewards" or similar?

On 5, I wonder if there are ways to encourage eventual convergence while recognising the need (right now) for divergent exploration of "what is KM anyway" through better labelling of our various "schools of thought". A taxonomy even ;-)

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 14/05/2020 9:48 am, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Hi Stephen

 

I’m with you on items 1-3.

 

On items 4-5 we need greater depth and diversity I think, we are not yet far enough out of the “Age of Braggadocio”. For item 4 we need more diversity of communities in place, the fewer there are, the more dependent any “learned society” will be on the personalities at the core. I’d give it another 20 years.

 

For item 5, as we are very much in a complex space, we need to feel our way rather than to design our way - which is to say every designed effort helps, but we need diversity of effort and perspective for something durable to emerge.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383


<email footer small.jpeg>




twitter: @plambesg



Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 13 May 2020, at 10:31 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

 

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


<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 

 

 

 

 


Because You Need To Know - Gurteen (2) #podcast

Edwin K. Morrris
 

The new way we toil and labor; how knowledge management is changing the interplay between society and the on ramp to work life. David Gurteen shares his view from the UK.

Enjoy this just release podcast.

https://lnkd.in/eTAC8ri

 

 

 

Check out our latest podcast:  Because you need to know        


Edwin K. Morris
President and Founder of Pioneer Knowledge Services

Official Trademark PKS Logo 45x45

What is Knowledge Management?

Office 716.995.4461

234.542.5836 fax

https://pioneer-ks.org/  

 


May 19 SIKM call: Tom Barfield - Navigating Knowledge to the User #monthly-call

Tom Barfield
 

I have the floor for this Tuesday's SIKM Forum call.  Here is my plan:

1.  Introduction of the KM Collection (See related post)
2.  Discussion on approaches we can take to Navigate Knowledge to the User.  I will share some thoughts on these questions and invite discussion:
  • What are examples of navigating knowledge to the user?​
  • What signals might be useful in intuiting user interests and needs?​
  • What sources of information might be relevant to draw from?

·         When: Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 11:00 AM-12:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time

·         Where: (712) 770-4035 (US and Canada) Passcode 178302

·         International Dial-in Numbers

·         Online Meeting ID: stangarfield

·         If you join online, be sure to click on the grey phone icon and then choose your audio preference. If your audio is live, you should see a red phone icon.

·         If you have problems connecting, call customer service at 844-844-1322.

 


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

Murray Jennex
 

sounds like we are agreeing Stephen.  in academia, the syllabus is what implements the curriculum.  A course catalog lists the name and general description of the course in the curriculum.  The syllabus specifies what the course covers, how it covers it, when, what the readings and assessments are, etc.  I totally agree that what you want are the "domains of knowledge" or whatever else we want to call it....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: Murray Jennex <murphjen@...>; SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Thu, May 14, 2020 5:53 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward?

Ah, I see. I was using the term "syllabus" for the general and had imagined "curriculum" to be the term for the prescribed course.
It seems like the terms operate a bit interchangeably, a bit like I see people mix and match "Aims", "Objectives", "Outcomes", and "Goals".
Suffice to say that we agree on the correct level of specificity that would be useful for KM practice. I am talking about domains of knowledge rather than anything more detailed.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 15/05/2020 10:37 am, Murray Jennex wrote:
good question Stephen, when I think syllabus I think a set of modules that have specific hours assigned to specific topics.  When I say domains of knowledge I am referring to the large buckets of knowledge, for instance one domain in cybersecurity is risk management that has a large number of sub topics.  No hours are assigned to modules or anything so the knowledge domain is more a list of topics with no hours or modules assigned to it.  A syllabus would be constructed to implement a study of the knowledge domain and the syllabus would assign the number of hours to each module.  A subtle difference.  The knowledge domain allows the instructor the freedom to focus on what they think is important but still tells the student what all the topics are.  The syllabus is very prescriptive on how much time is spent on each topic, what learning objectives will be tested (and how), etc.

I look at the ISO standard as a set of knowledge domains as it does not dictate how things must be done, just what must be addressed.  I hope this helps....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: Murray Jennex <murphjen@...>; SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Thu, May 14, 2020 5:28 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward?

Thanks Murray, that's very useful feedback.
I looked up the AACSB and it seems like they have a European equivalent in EQUIS. The "triple accreditation" standard that includes AMBA is probably too specific since that focuses solely on the MBA but I could see merits in approaching the first two. Do you see any detriment to pursuing both?
As it happens I have three AACSB-accredited institutions on my doorstep (Griffith University, QUT and University of Queensland) so I should reach other and see if there are any sparks of interest.
Point of clarification on 5 - what do you consider the difference between "domains of knowledge" and a "syllabus"? I see them as pretty similar.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/05/2020 10:37 am, Murray Jennex wrote:
Stephen, a couple of comments:

Item 3 - KM accreditation.  We need to be careful here.  Universities deal enough with accreditation, adding a new accreditation is not likely to be embraced.  I suggest we work on getting KM considered as part of the AACSB accreditation program.  AACSB is the top quality business school accreditation and is used world wide.  We could use the ISO KM standard as a "foot in the door" to get AACSB to consider KM a knowledge domain worth including.

Item 4 - a noble idea but fraught with possible stagnation.  Unfortunately, learned societies tend to embrace those that are already in them and are very slow to adopt new ideas, I recall that the learned physics society back in 1898 or so proclaimed physics a dead discipline because all was known.  What a mistake!  Also, selection criteria becomes contentious and divisive.  Not sure how to fix this as in the IS field we have a huge debate between the haves faculty and the haves not faculty and even claims of bias so I'm leery of starting something new

Item 5 - common syllabus - another noble idea but one that tends to lead to minimum levels of performance in the classroom.  Almost all for-profit universities use a common syllabus approach as a means to allow the use of less qualified professors.  Many times the value of having an expert teach a class (academic or professional) is the extra insight they bring in and you don't want to stymie this.  My suggestion is to instead do what the cybersecurity people do: establish domains of knowledge critical to mastering the discipline.  I also teach cybersecurity (I know, kind of weird to teach people how to share and how not to share) and I map my courses to the cissp (certifies information systems security professional) domains of knowledge as a way of showing students that they are getting the knowledge the profession deems critical.  This allows me the flexibility to teach my strengths while also ensuring students see they are getting what they need.

some humble opinions....murray jennex.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 7:31 am
Subject: [SIKM] A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward? (was: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? etc)

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

Patrick Lambe
 

On #5, I think a thesaurus-cum-glossary or at most a knowledge graph.. a taxonomy would stifle emergence ;)

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 15 May 2020, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,

I see your point on 4, and would be happy to explore alternative structures. My main objective wasn't to put the knowledge of certain people on a pedestal but to provide a stronger scaffolding for respected figures in the community to have referred authority to start conversations and drive awareness in the global community. How would you feel about an elected "Council of Stewards" or similar?

On 5, I wonder if there are ways to encourage eventual convergence while recognising the need (right now) for divergent exploration of "what is KM anyway" through better labelling of our various "schools of thought". A taxonomy even ;-)

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/05/2020 9:48 am, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen

I’m with you on items 1-3.

On items 4-5 we need greater depth and diversity I think, we are not yet far enough out of the “Age of Braggadocio”. For item 4 we need more diversity of communities in place, the fewer there are, the more dependent any “learned society” will be on the personalities at the core. I’d give it another 20 years.

For item 5, as we are very much in a complex space, we need to feel our way rather than to design our way - which is to say every designed effort helps, but we need diversity of effort and perspective for something durable to emerge.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 13 May 2020, at 10:31 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

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

<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 





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

Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Stephen

to put the knowledge of certain people on a pedestal

seems to me to be just a more concise way of saying

but to provide a stronger scaffolding for respected figures in the community to have referred authority to start conversations and drive awareness in the global community.

Frankly, as soon as any semblance of “authority” or “status” starts to be inferred by a community or society initiative, the honey bees come a buzzing.

KM is such a hard space to make a living in, it’s hard not to engage in self-promotion, whether we are KM practitioners looking to build a career past our current job, or consultants/product developers struggling to win business, or educators trying to get visibility, or researchers trying to build a portfolio - nor should we be too school masterly about trying to contain it. It’s just a fact of life as we now live it. 

There’s still a great deal of testosterone about as well, though thankfully it seems to be past its peak.

I’m much more comfortable with an agora, where people’s “authority" is recognised contingently based on their contributions on a day to day basis (and on a cumulative reputation over time).

I believe CILIP is looking at their Fellowship scheme in relation to KM, and that kind of neutral body with a pre-existing framework will have its limitations, but also a neutrality that we need. It might provide a kernel, let’s see.

There are three reasons why I suggested 20 years:

1) I’m unlikely to be around to take flak if it takes a lot longer
2) People who stick around consistently over the current and coming period of non-KM sexiness are likely to be solid, reliable people, who will have a good track record by then
3) We don’t yet have enough diversity (i.e. the number of breadth/depth/duration people is still low - the Nancy Whites, Nancy Dixons, Stan Garfields - i.e. gender, geography, corporate/non corporate, people who consistently point to and build on other people’s wisdom and not just their own) - no offence meant to anybody in this community, the conversations and the sharing are excellent, I just don’t think we are mature enough or diverse enough to be able to sustain what you seem to have in mind.

But that’s just my opinion!

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 15 May 2020, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,

I see your point on 4, and would be happy to explore alternative structures. My main objective wasn't to put the knowledge of certain people on a pedestal but to provide a stronger scaffolding for respected figures in the community to have referred authority to start conversations and drive awareness in the global community. How would you feel about an elected "Council of Stewards" or similar?

On 5, I wonder if there are ways to encourage eventual convergence while recognising the need (right now) for divergent exploration of "what is KM anyway" through better labelling of our various "schools of thought". A taxonomy even ;-)

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/05/2020 9:48 am, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen

I’m with you on items 1-3.

On items 4-5 we need greater depth and diversity I think, we are not yet far enough out of the “Age of Braggadocio”. For item 4 we need more diversity of communities in place, the fewer there are, the more dependent any “learned society” will be on the personalities at the core. I’d give it another 20 years.

For item 5, as we are very much in a complex space, we need to feel our way rather than to design our way - which is to say every designed effort helps, but we need diversity of effort and perspective for something durable to emerge.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 13 May 2020, at 10:31 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

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

<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 





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

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Patrick,

I see your point on 4, and would be happy to explore alternative structures. My main objective wasn't to put the knowledge of certain people on a pedestal but to provide a stronger scaffolding for respected figures in the community to have referred authority to start conversations and drive awareness in the global community. How would you feel about an elected "Council of Stewards" or similar?

On 5, I wonder if there are ways to encourage eventual convergence while recognising the need (right now) for divergent exploration of "what is KM anyway" through better labelling of our various "schools of thought". A taxonomy even ;-)

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/05/2020 9:48 am, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Hi Stephen

I’m with you on items 1-3.

On items 4-5 we need greater depth and diversity I think, we are not yet far enough out of the “Age of Braggadocio”. For item 4 we need more diversity of communities in place, the fewer there are, the more dependent any “learned society” will be on the personalities at the core. I’d give it another 20 years.

For item 5, as we are very much in a complex space, we need to feel our way rather than to design our way - which is to say every designed effort helps, but we need diversity of effort and perspective for something durable to emerge.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 13 May 2020, at 10:31 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

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

<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 




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

Stephen Bounds
 

Ah, I see. I was using the term "syllabus" for the general and had imagined "curriculum" to be the term for the prescribed course.

It seems like the terms operate a bit interchangeably, a bit like I see people mix and match "Aims", "Objectives", "Outcomes", and "Goals".

Suffice to say that we agree on the correct level of specificity that would be useful for KM practice. I am talking about domains of knowledge rather than anything more detailed.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 15/05/2020 10:37 am, Murray Jennex wrote:

good question Stephen, when I think syllabus I think a set of modules that have specific hours assigned to specific topics.  When I say domains of knowledge I am referring to the large buckets of knowledge, for instance one domain in cybersecurity is risk management that has a large number of sub topics.  No hours are assigned to modules or anything so the knowledge domain is more a list of topics with no hours or modules assigned to it.  A syllabus would be constructed to implement a study of the knowledge domain and the syllabus would assign the number of hours to each module.  A subtle difference.  The knowledge domain allows the instructor the freedom to focus on what they think is important but still tells the student what all the topics are.  The syllabus is very prescriptive on how much time is spent on each topic, what learning objectives will be tested (and how), etc.

I look at the ISO standard as a set of knowledge domains as it does not dictate how things must be done, just what must be addressed.  I hope this helps....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: Murray Jennex <murphjen@...>; SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Thu, May 14, 2020 5:28 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward?

Thanks Murray, that's very useful feedback.
I looked up the AACSB and it seems like they have a European equivalent in EQUIS. The "triple accreditation" standard that includes AMBA is probably too specific since that focuses solely on the MBA but I could see merits in approaching the first two. Do you see any detriment to pursuing both?
As it happens I have three AACSB-accredited institutions on my doorstep (Griffith University, QUT and University of Queensland) so I should reach other and see if there are any sparks of interest.
Point of clarification on 5 - what do you consider the difference between "domains of knowledge" and a "syllabus"? I see them as pretty similar.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/05/2020 10:37 am, Murray Jennex wrote:
Stephen, a couple of comments:

Item 3 - KM accreditation.  We need to be careful here.  Universities deal enough with accreditation, adding a new accreditation is not likely to be embraced.  I suggest we work on getting KM considered as part of the AACSB accreditation program.  AACSB is the top quality business school accreditation and is used world wide.  We could use the ISO KM standard as a "foot in the door" to get AACSB to consider KM a knowledge domain worth including.

Item 4 - a noble idea but fraught with possible stagnation.  Unfortunately, learned societies tend to embrace those that are already in them and are very slow to adopt new ideas, I recall that the learned physics society back in 1898 or so proclaimed physics a dead discipline because all was known.  What a mistake!  Also, selection criteria becomes contentious and divisive.  Not sure how to fix this as in the IS field we have a huge debate between the haves faculty and the haves not faculty and even claims of bias so I'm leery of starting something new

Item 5 - common syllabus - another noble idea but one that tends to lead to minimum levels of performance in the classroom.  Almost all for-profit universities use a common syllabus approach as a means to allow the use of less qualified professors.  Many times the value of having an expert teach a class (academic or professional) is the extra insight they bring in and you don't want to stymie this.  My suggestion is to instead do what the cybersecurity people do: establish domains of knowledge critical to mastering the discipline.  I also teach cybersecurity (I know, kind of weird to teach people how to share and how not to share) and I map my courses to the cissp (certifies information systems security professional) domains of knowledge as a way of showing students that they are getting the knowledge the profession deems critical.  This allows me the flexibility to teach my strengths while also ensuring students see they are getting what they need.

some humble opinions....murray jennex.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 7:31 am
Subject: [SIKM] A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward? (was: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? etc)

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

Murray Jennex
 

good question Stephen, when I think syllabus I think a set of modules that have specific hours assigned to specific topics.  When I say domains of knowledge I am referring to the large buckets of knowledge, for instance one domain in cybersecurity is risk management that has a large number of sub topics.  No hours are assigned to modules or anything so the knowledge domain is more a list of topics with no hours or modules assigned to it.  A syllabus would be constructed to implement a study of the knowledge domain and the syllabus would assign the number of hours to each module.  A subtle difference.  The knowledge domain allows the instructor the freedom to focus on what they think is important but still tells the student what all the topics are.  The syllabus is very prescriptive on how much time is spent on each topic, what learning objectives will be tested (and how), etc.

I look at the ISO standard as a set of knowledge domains as it does not dictate how things must be done, just what must be addressed.  I hope this helps....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: Murray Jennex <murphjen@...>; SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io>
Sent: Thu, May 14, 2020 5:28 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward?

Thanks Murray, that's very useful feedback.
I looked up the AACSB and it seems like they have a European equivalent in EQUIS. The "triple accreditation" standard that includes AMBA is probably too specific since that focuses solely on the MBA but I could see merits in approaching the first two. Do you see any detriment to pursuing both?
As it happens I have three AACSB-accredited institutions on my doorstep (Griffith University, QUT and University of Queensland) so I should reach other and see if there are any sparks of interest.
Point of clarification on 5 - what do you consider the difference between "domains of knowledge" and a "syllabus"? I see them as pretty similar.
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/05/2020 10:37 am, Murray Jennex wrote:
Stephen, a couple of comments:

Item 3 - KM accreditation.  We need to be careful here.  Universities deal enough with accreditation, adding a new accreditation is not likely to be embraced.  I suggest we work on getting KM considered as part of the AACSB accreditation program.  AACSB is the top quality business school accreditation and is used world wide.  We could use the ISO KM standard as a "foot in the door" to get AACSB to consider KM a knowledge domain worth including.

Item 4 - a noble idea but fraught with possible stagnation.  Unfortunately, learned societies tend to embrace those that are already in them and are very slow to adopt new ideas, I recall that the learned physics society back in 1898 or so proclaimed physics a dead discipline because all was known.  What a mistake!  Also, selection criteria becomes contentious and divisive.  Not sure how to fix this as in the IS field we have a huge debate between the haves faculty and the haves not faculty and even claims of bias so I'm leery of starting something new

Item 5 - common syllabus - another noble idea but one that tends to lead to minimum levels of performance in the classroom.  Almost all for-profit universities use a common syllabus approach as a means to allow the use of less qualified professors.  Many times the value of having an expert teach a class (academic or professional) is the extra insight they bring in and you don't want to stymie this.  My suggestion is to instead do what the cybersecurity people do: establish domains of knowledge critical to mastering the discipline.  I also teach cybersecurity (I know, kind of weird to teach people how to share and how not to share) and I map my courses to the cissp (certifies information systems security professional) domains of knowledge as a way of showing students that they are getting the knowledge the profession deems critical.  This allows me the flexibility to teach my strengths while also ensuring students see they are getting what they need.

some humble opinions....murray jennex.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 7:31 am
Subject: [SIKM] A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward? (was: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? etc)

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

Stephen Bounds
 

Thanks Murray, that's very useful feedback.

I looked up the AACSB and it seems like they have a European equivalent in EQUIS. The "triple accreditation" standard that includes AMBA is probably too specific since that focuses solely on the MBA but I could see merits in approaching the first two. Do you see any detriment to pursuing both?

As it happens I have three AACSB-accredited institutions on my doorstep (Griffith University, QUT and University of Queensland) so I should reach other and see if there are any sparks of interest.

Point of clarification on 5 - what do you consider the difference between "domains of knowledge" and a "syllabus"? I see them as pretty similar.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/05/2020 10:37 am, Murray Jennex wrote:

Stephen, a couple of comments:

Item 3 - KM accreditation.  We need to be careful here.  Universities deal enough with accreditation, adding a new accreditation is not likely to be embraced.  I suggest we work on getting KM considered as part of the AACSB accreditation program.  AACSB is the top quality business school accreditation and is used world wide.  We could use the ISO KM standard as a "foot in the door" to get AACSB to consider KM a knowledge domain worth including.

Item 4 - a noble idea but fraught with possible stagnation.  Unfortunately, learned societies tend to embrace those that are already in them and are very slow to adopt new ideas, I recall that the learned physics society back in 1898 or so proclaimed physics a dead discipline because all was known.  What a mistake!  Also, selection criteria becomes contentious and divisive.  Not sure how to fix this as in the IS field we have a huge debate between the haves faculty and the haves not faculty and even claims of bias so I'm leery of starting something new

Item 5 - common syllabus - another noble idea but one that tends to lead to minimum levels of performance in the classroom.  Almost all for-profit universities use a common syllabus approach as a means to allow the use of less qualified professors.  Many times the value of having an expert teach a class (academic or professional) is the extra insight they bring in and you don't want to stymie this.  My suggestion is to instead do what the cybersecurity people do: establish domains of knowledge critical to mastering the discipline.  I also teach cybersecurity (I know, kind of weird to teach people how to share and how not to share) and I map my courses to the cissp (certifies information systems security professional) domains of knowledge as a way of showing students that they are getting the knowledge the profession deems critical.  This allows me the flexibility to teach my strengths while also ensuring students see they are getting what they need.

some humble opinions....murray jennex.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 7:31 am
Subject: [SIKM] A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward? (was: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? etc)

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: The KM Collection - easier access to best content - looking for volunteers

Tom Barfield
 

Hello Aprill

 

The small circle, on the top right corner of a Keeeb item, when clicked causes a bar to appear on the bottom of the screen with some editing options.  Those editing options apply to all the items you have selected.

 

In the short term, Discovery search will improve as we collect more content.  It can also improve if we decided to add/remove content sources from scope (let me know if you have one you’d like to add). 

 

In the longer term, Keeeb is working on analytic approaches to improve Discovery search quality.  For example, evaluate queries and dynamically adjust the weighting of the sources for each query.  We are just getting started on that and other ideas to improve search quality.  Our CTO, Sid Probstein was the CTO for Fast Search (back in the day) and more recently the same role for Attivio – he is ramping up our attention on approaches to improve search.

 

Tom

 

From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Aprill Allen
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 5:36 PM
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] The KM Collection - easier access to best content - looking for volunteers

 

Hi Tom,

I've had a bit of a play. Added a new topic to the KM collection, and a couple of bookmarks as content. I've also added personal bookmarks etc. 
Content items have a small circle in the top right corner of the tile... will that have a purpose? I assumed it was a tick-box sort of thing, but it seems to be superfluous.

Re the discovery - I did a search for "workshop activities" and found a great thread started by Nicky a million years ago. Love that! Do we have a way to train the search to improve relevance or is that happening without our direct input?

thanks!




--

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 - looking for volunteers

Aprill Allen
 

Hi Tom,

I've had a bit of a play. Added a new topic to the KM collection, and a couple of bookmarks as content. I've also added personal bookmarks etc. 
Content items have a small circle in the top right corner of the tile... will that have a purpose? I assumed it was a tick-box sort of thing, but it seems to be superfluous.

Re the discovery - I did a search for "workshop activities" and found a great thread started by Nicky a million years ago. Love that! Do we have a way to train the search to improve relevance or is that happening without our direct input?

thanks!




--

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


The role of KM in COVID-19 #COVID-19

Robert L. Bogue
 

Stephen –

 

While I think the ISO standard is an important forward step, it’s far from prescriptive (and it shouldn’t be.)  From a learning and development perspective the question is to what degree someone should own, be aware of, or lead an activity.  (Think RACI.)  From there you can identify what skills make up that objective and which of those skills need to be held by each person.  I’ve got numerous exercises to build trust in an organization and numerous structures to enhance trust.  Some are strategic.  Some are communications.  Some are just simply doing what you say you’re going to do.  The question is, what should the average (or even best) knowledge manager know about these trust skills?  In knowledge management, as you know, there are so many subdisciplines that you can’t be expected to know all of them in detail.  Thus my opening for folks to share whether they believe that the techniques are inside or outside the line.

 

Without losing the start of this thread, I reacted to your “absolute forefront.”  You provided a set of skills that perhaps are inside the circle of KM – but honestly I’m not convinced that everyone would believe they are.  I think that the COVID-19 situation is an interesting opportunity to consider how we’re advancing the profession and ways that we need to move – and ways we need to partner.

 

It’s no secret – and is in fact a subject of late-night TV humor – that the leader of the US isn’t always providing the most accurate information.  (Please don’t descend into politics because I don’t care about the politics of the situation, I care about the most good for the most people.)  So in the context of misinformation, what’s KM’s role to get to the right answer?  I understand your point of view about “truth” and even subscribe to it.  As I mentioned in my initial response, we’re telling front line workers things which are not safe – but it’s safest for the most people knowing that we have supply restrictions.  It’s another form of the same kind of awful triage decisions that healthcare providers have been forced to make since the profession was started.

 

I’m still not sure how the skills that KMers have directly relate to improving the situation.  Left to the natural evolution of the system, the chaos will continue until an answer comes along that addresses the requisite level of completeness (which is itself undefined).  After that the solution will take hold until it no longer meets expectations or it squashes out alternatives.  I don’t see how we’re going to influence a better outcome.  I agree that trust is critical.  However, it can’t be built in the moment.  The concept of safety is important too (it’s what trust leads to) but it can’t be generated now.  (It can be encouraged.)

 

The truth is that KM has a place in the labs working on understanding COVID-19 and those working on vaccines.  It has an important role to fill in improving the organization’s capacity to deliver solutions.   However, I don’t think addressing the bad information that is spewed from multiple angles is something that is a core KM skill.  It’s more the skill of PR and communications people – and as much as I hate it – political spinsters.

 

I think there is a ton of value we bring – however, I’ve always seen KM as a SUPPORTING role not a LEAD role (which forefront implies).

 

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: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 8:28 PM
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra #jobs #discussion-starter

 

Hi Rob,

Well handily, we now have an ISO standard which defines the scope of Knowledge Management within an organisation :) So that should help us work out where the core KM skillset lies.

Here's how ISO30401 describes the mandatory requirements of a KM system:

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

1.     Knowledge development: The organisation shall act to establish and sustain systematic activities and behaviours relevant to its Scope for effectively managing knowledge through its stages of development:

a)     Acquiring new knowledge

b)    Applying current knowledge

c)     Retaining current knowledge

d)    Handling outdated or invalid knowledge

(ISO 30401.4.4.2)

2.     Knowledge flows: The organisation shall act to establish and sustain systematic activities and behaviours relevant to its Scope for supporting all different types of knowledge flows:

a)     Human interaction (ie individual and team conversations and interactions)

b)    Representation (ie demonstration, recording, or codification)

c)     Combination (ie synthesis, curation, classification, and discovery)

d)    Internalization and learning (ie assessment and uptake of discovered knowledge)

(ISO 30401.4.4.3)

3.     Knowledge management enablers: The organisation shall integrate elements of the following enablers to create an effective KMS:

a)    Human capital (ie roles and accountabilities, senior management support)

b)    Processes (ie defined knowledge activities such as lessons learned)

c)     Technology and infrastructure (ie collaborative tools and physical workspaces)

d)    Governance (ie strategy, policy, SLAs, and codes of conduct)

e)     Knowledge management culture (ie norms of knowledge sharing and learning)

(ISO 30401.4.4.4, ISO 30401 4.5)

4.     Key commitments: Top management shall demonstrate leadership and commitment by:

a)     fostering organizational values which enhance trust

b)    ensuring that KM policy and objectives are established, can be evaluated, and align with the strategic direction of the organization

c)     providing needed resources for the KMS

d)    communicating the importance of effective knowledge management and of conforming to, or exceeding, the KMS requirements

e)     managing the process of change towards adoption and application, and towards the cultivation of a culture that values, supports and enables knowledge management

f)      ensuring that the KMS achieves its intended outcome(s)

g)    directing, motivating, inspiring, empowering and supporting persons to contribute to the effectiveness of the KMS

h)    promoting continual improvement of the KMS

i)      supporting other relevant management roles to demonstrate their leadership as it applies to their areas of responsibility

To turn to the concepts I referenced earlier --

Trust is easy - it's right there as a management commitment in 4(a). I think it's incumbent on Knowledge Managers to inform and educate managers on what it means to 'enhance trust'.

 

To clarify what I meant by debiasing, you should think of "bias" and "propaganda" as opposite forces. It is often in the interests of organisations for people to believe certain things, or at least to act as if they believe certain things, which is functionally the same thing. That is very relevant to the entirety of the Knowledge Development component of ISO30401.

 

Psychological distancing is more niche, but I see it as an important tool to evaluate where 3(b) and 3(d) may be flawed, as well as the overall effective operations of knowledge development.

 

One last point: Although it's a somewhat brutal view, especially in a group that tends to associate "knowledge" with "truth", I genuinely believe that truth is a second-order consideration. While of course knowledge being "true" is a good predictor for it being "useful", utility trumps any philosophical assessment of truth and has the advantage of being objectively observable. A corollary of this is that people can believe untrue things as long as it doesn't affect the overall utility of the knowledge system in question.

 

Cheers,

Stephen.

 

On 14/05/2020 1:23 am, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

Stephen –

 

Thanks.  That helps.

 

I don’t know that I perceive any of these to be KM skillsets – though I should ponder that more.  I think they impact success of a KM initiative but I don’t think about them inside the sphere of core KM.

 

Clearly trust impacts everything in our world.  It’s the key driver for KM and collaboration more broadly.   (You can find more about my thoughts on trust at https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2019/07/03/trust-vulnerability-intimacy-revisited/ and the related links.)

 

I fundamentally don’t believe we can debias ourselves.   I think we can become more aware but not remove biases.  (My belief seems to be supported by most of the researchers but if you’ve got contrary evidence I’d love to see it.)  You linked to your article that speaks about changing people’s minds.  I think this is an oversimplification.  Having used the work cataloged in Motivational Interviewing (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2017/01/02/book-review-motivational-interviewing-helping-people-change/) I recognize some of the aspects of what you’re saying in the article, but I’m not able to make the association to the current conversation.  Perhaps you can clarify the relevance for me.

 

With regard to psychological distancing, I agree that the more dissimilar that someone seems from someone else the less likely it is that they’ll accept their perspective or even evaluate it.  It’s one of the reasons that Everett Rogers said that innovators can’t directly impact the majority.  They need the early adopters as a mediator of the differences. (See https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2012/07/01/book-review-diffusion-of-innovations/)

 

I guess that I see most of what you’re talking about as aspects of change management rather than knowledge management.  While I believe that there are aspects of change management in KM, I’m not sure that I’d perceive it as core.  I could put a large number of skills in the KM bucket if I wanted to.  However, I don’t know that this supports the assertion that KM should be at the absolute forefront.

 

As for “nudge theory” I assume you’re speaking of the work cataloged in Nudge (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2017/04/10/book-review-nudge-improving-decisions-health-wealth-happiness/) if so, then I’d say that it’s certainly a “pop psychology” book – however, the underpinnings are much more solid than many other books (notably Duhigg’s The Power of Habit - https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2018/08/06/book-review-the-power-of-habit-why-we-do-what-we-do-in-life-and-business/)  There are numerous other works that support the fundamental science about the susceptibility of humans to small and unnoticed “nudges.”  You could look at Influencer as a reference point for something more scientifically grounded.  (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2015/11/30/book-review-influencer-the-new-science-of-leading-change/)

 

With regard to changing people from wanting to feel safe to wanting the truth, if you ever figure out how to do that reliably you’ll be king of the world.  At every level we don’t want to know the right answer, we want to know the answer that’s good enough.  We want to feel OK, not be objectively right.  (See Change or Die - https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2014/07/29/book-review-change-or-die/, The Paradox of Choice - https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2011/11/26/book-review-the-paradox-of-choice/, and The Happiness Hypothesis - https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2012/01/19/book-review-the-happiness-hypothesis/)

 

To up level the conversation, I’d love to hear what people believe to be core KM skills, which ones that folks believe are supporting, and which ones are ancillary.  If we’re going to broaden the circle to include these as skills… how far do we push the edge?

 

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: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 10:30 AM
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra #jobs #discussion-starter

 

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

Murray Jennex
 

Stephen, a couple of comments:

Item 3 - KM accreditation.  We need to be careful here.  Universities deal enough with accreditation, adding a new accreditation is not likely to be embraced.  I suggest we work on getting KM considered as part of the AACSB accreditation program.  AACSB is the top quality business school accreditation and is used world wide.  We could use the ISO KM standard as a "foot in the door" to get AACSB to consider KM a knowledge domain worth including.

Item 4 - a noble idea but fraught with possible stagnation.  Unfortunately, learned societies tend to embrace those that are already in them and are very slow to adopt new ideas, I recall that the learned physics society back in 1898 or so proclaimed physics a dead discipline because all was known.  What a mistake!  Also, selection criteria becomes contentious and divisive.  Not sure how to fix this as in the IS field we have a huge debate between the haves faculty and the haves not faculty and even claims of bias so I'm leery of starting something new

Item 5 - common syllabus - another noble idea but one that tends to lead to minimum levels of performance in the classroom.  Almost all for-profit universities use a common syllabus approach as a means to allow the use of less qualified professors.  Many times the value of having an expert teach a class (academic or professional) is the extra insight they bring in and you don't want to stymie this.  My suggestion is to instead do what the cybersecurity people do: establish domains of knowledge critical to mastering the discipline.  I also teach cybersecurity (I know, kind of weird to teach people how to share and how not to share) and I map my courses to the cissp (certifies information systems security professional) domains of knowledge as a way of showing students that they are getting the knowledge the profession deems critical.  This allows me the flexibility to teach my strengths while also ensuring students see they are getting what they need.

some humble opinions....murray jennex.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: SIKM@groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 7:31 am
Subject: [SIKM] A strategy to guide the KM discipline forward? (was: In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? etc)

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? #KMers #proven-practice #discussion-starter #future-of-work

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Rob,

Well handily, we now have an ISO standard which defines the scope of Knowledge Management within an organisation :) So that should help us work out where the core KM skillset lies.

Here's how ISO30401 describes the mandatory requirements of a KM system:

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

1.     Knowledge development: The organisation shall act to establish and sustain systematic activities and behaviours relevant to its Scope for effectively managing knowledge through its stages of development:

a)     Acquiring new knowledge

b)    Applying current knowledge

c)     Retaining current knowledge

d)    Handling outdated or invalid knowledge

(ISO 30401.4.4.2)

2.     Knowledge flows: The organisation shall act to establish and sustain systematic activities and behaviours relevant to its Scope for supporting all different types of knowledge flows:

a)     Human interaction (ie individual and team conversations and interactions)

b)    Representation (ie demonstration, recording, or codification)

c)     Combination (ie synthesis, curation, classification, and discovery)

d)    Internalization and learning (ie assessment and uptake of discovered knowledge)

(ISO 30401.4.4.3)

3.     Knowledge management enablers: The organisation shall integrate elements of the following enablers to create an effective KMS:

a)    Human capital (ie roles and accountabilities, senior management support)

b)    Processes (ie defined knowledge activities such as lessons learned)

c)     Technology and infrastructure (ie collaborative tools and physical workspaces)

d)    Governance (ie strategy, policy, SLAs, and codes of conduct)

e)     Knowledge management culture (ie norms of knowledge sharing and learning)

(ISO 30401.4.4.4, ISO 30401 4.5)

4.     Key commitments: Top management shall demonstrate leadership and commitment by:

a)     fostering organizational values which enhance trust

b)    ensuring that KM policy and objectives are established, can be evaluated, and align with the strategic direction of the organization

c)     providing needed resources for the KMS

d)    communicating the importance of effective knowledge management and of conforming to, or exceeding, the KMS requirements

e)     managing the process of change towards adoption and application, and towards the cultivation of a culture that values, supports and enables knowledge management

f)      ensuring that the KMS achieves its intended outcome(s)

g)    directing, motivating, inspiring, empowering and supporting persons to contribute to the effectiveness of the KMS

h)    promoting continual improvement of the KMS

i)      supporting other relevant management roles to demonstrate their leadership as it applies to their areas of responsibility

To turn to the concepts I referenced earlier --

Trust is easy - it's right there as a management commitment in 4(a). I think it's incumbent on Knowledge Managers to inform and educate managers on what it means to 'enhance trust'.

To clarify what I meant by debiasing, you should think of "bias" and "propaganda" as opposite forces. It is often in the interests of organisations for people to believe certain things, or at least to act as if they believe certain things, which is functionally the same thing. That is very relevant to the entirety of the Knowledge Development component of ISO30401.

Psychological distancing is more niche, but I see it as an important tool to evaluate where 3(b) and 3(d) may be flawed, as well as the overall effective operations of knowledge development.

One last point: Although it's a somewhat brutal view, especially in a group that tends to associate "knowledge" with "truth", I genuinely believe that truth is a second-order consideration. While of course knowledge being "true" is a good predictor for it being "useful", utility trumps any philosophical assessment of truth and has the advantage of being objectively observable. A corollary of this is that people can believe untrue things as long as it doesn't affect the overall utility of the knowledge system in question.

Cheers,
Stephen.

On 14/05/2020 1:23 am, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

Stephen –

 

Thanks.  That helps.

 

I don’t know that I perceive any of these to be KM skillsets – though I should ponder that more.  I think they impact success of a KM initiative but I don’t think about them inside the sphere of core KM.

 

Clearly trust impacts everything in our world.  It’s the key driver for KM and collaboration more broadly.   (You can find more about my thoughts on trust at https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2019/07/03/trust-vulnerability-intimacy-revisited/ and the related links.)

 

I fundamentally don’t believe we can debias ourselves.   I think we can become more aware but not remove biases.  (My belief seems to be supported by most of the researchers but if you’ve got contrary evidence I’d love to see it.)  You linked to your article that speaks about changing people’s minds.  I think this is an oversimplification.  Having used the work cataloged in Motivational Interviewing (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2017/01/02/book-review-motivational-interviewing-helping-people-change/) I recognize some of the aspects of what you’re saying in the article, but I’m not able to make the association to the current conversation.  Perhaps you can clarify the relevance for me.

 

With regard to psychological distancing, I agree that the more dissimilar that someone seems from someone else the less likely it is that they’ll accept their perspective or even evaluate it.  It’s one of the reasons that Everett Rogers said that innovators can’t directly impact the majority.  They need the early adopters as a mediator of the differences. (See https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2012/07/01/book-review-diffusion-of-innovations/)

 

I guess that I see most of what you’re talking about as aspects of change management rather than knowledge management.  While I believe that there are aspects of change management in KM, I’m not sure that I’d perceive it as core.  I could put a large number of skills in the KM bucket if I wanted to.  However, I don’t know that this supports the assertion that KM should be at the absolute forefront.

 

As for “nudge theory” I assume you’re speaking of the work cataloged in Nudge (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2017/04/10/book-review-nudge-improving-decisions-health-wealth-happiness/) if so, then I’d say that it’s certainly a “pop psychology” book – however, the underpinnings are much more solid than many other books (notably Duhigg’s The Power of Habit - https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2018/08/06/book-review-the-power-of-habit-why-we-do-what-we-do-in-life-and-business/)  There are numerous other works that support the fundamental science about the susceptibility of humans to small and unnoticed “nudges.”  You could look at Influencer as a reference point for something more scientifically grounded.  (https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2015/11/30/book-review-influencer-the-new-science-of-leading-change/)

 

With regard to changing people from wanting to feel safe to wanting the truth, if you ever figure out how to do that reliably you’ll be king of the world.  At every level we don’t want to know the right answer, we want to know the answer that’s good enough.  We want to feel OK, not be objectively right.  (See Change or Die - https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2014/07/29/book-review-change-or-die/, The Paradox of Choice - https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2011/11/26/book-review-the-paradox-of-choice/, and The Happiness Hypothesis - https://thorprojects.com/blog/archive/2012/01/19/book-review-the-happiness-hypothesis/)

 

To up level the conversation, I’d love to hear what people believe to be core KM skills, which ones that folks believe are supporting, and which ones are ancillary.  If we’re going to broaden the circle to include these as skills… how far do we push the edge?

 

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: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 10:30 AM
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] In what Industries or Segments does KM Thrive? #futureofwork #kmers #proven-pra #jobs #discussion-starter

 

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

Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Stephen

I’m with you on items 1-3.

On items 4-5 we need greater depth and diversity I think, we are not yet far enough out of the “Age of Braggadocio”. For item 4 we need more diversity of communities in place, the fewer there are, the more dependent any “learned society” will be on the personalities at the core. I’d give it another 20 years.

For item 5, as we are very much in a complex space, we need to feel our way rather than to design our way - which is to say every designed effort helps, but we need diversity of effort and perspective for something durable to emerge.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 13 May 2020, at 10:31 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

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

<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 




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

Aprill Allen
 

David, this thread is asking a different question, hence Minu splitting it off. I can see a number of responses, already, to the first question offering suggestions for tools that do automated volume tagging etc.

Does anyone have any pointers to research on metadata mining?


cheers,
Aprill


--

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

1561 - 1580 of 9147