Date   

Re: Resource Questions #KM101 #question #resources

Stan Garfield
 
Edited

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 09:22 AM, Julien Tremblay-McLellan wrote:
  • Do you use your site as your "bookmark" platform, and then diffuse what you see fit? Is that how you principally organize digital resources?
  • site/stangarfield is 10 years
I use my site as a curated collection of my content and also of useful KM resources from others.  Just as I curate the work of KM thought leaders in my monthly Profiles in Knowledge series, I do the same for my own work and for citations and references to my work.

The current site is 10 years old, but before that in 2007 I created it at http://stangarfield.googlepages.com/ - see http://web.archive.org/web/20070217052805/http://stangarfield.googlepages.com/ for an early snapshot. Prior to that, in April 2006 I started it as an MSN group - see http://web.archive.org/web/20070421071752/http://groups.msn.com/KnowledgeManagement for a later snapshot and https://stangarfield.medium.com/bionic-eteamwork-km-links-and-documents-problems-in-threaded-discussions-99e68c9c39ac for the original table of contents.


Re: Resource Questions #KM101 #question #resources

Julien Tremblay-McLellan
 

Haha thank you Stan this is great and should keep me busy for a few years !

I am curious on how you organize your information, especially your digital resources.

  • Do you use your site as your "bookmark" platform, and then diffuse what you see fit? Is that how you principally organize digital resources?

I couldn't help myself and went to the end of the recent activity log to see when and how many edits are on the site.

I took a screenshot because it is pretty neat and impressive.

To the community esp. David, Bill and Michael thank you for the warm welcome. I will be in touch as I figure things out.


WEBINAR: Digital Accessibility & Inclusion - 10 Nov 2020 #webinar

Matt Moore
 

Simon Darcy video: https://youtu.be/Ja_yWiYeO5E
Sarah Pulis & Andrew Arch: https://youtu.be/bQcmldTBijY
Laila Coulton: https://youtu.be/st6WDFSTnzE
Panel Discussion: https://youtu.be/Vsxeshtctqs

Ensuring that digital environments are accessible and inclusive for
all people is critical for fairness, justice and productivity in our
societies. This session will explore digital accessibility from the
perspectives of those with disabilities who use such services and
those who need to design them.
- How do we design inclusive online environments?
- What is it like to be disabled and use such environments?
- How has the pandemic and move to digital impacted and been impacted
by inclusion?
- How do we move beyond technical standards compliance to ensure that
people can actually use products.

Simon Darcy is a Professor at the UTS Business School, University of
Technology Sydney. He specialises in developing inclusive
organisational approaches for diversity groups and understanding the
social impact of organisations and individuals. Simon has a long
history of involvement in advocacy and volunteer boards. He was a
member of the Disability Council of NSW (2011-2015), which is the
ministerial advisory to the New South Wales Government's Department of
Family and Community Services.

Andrew Arch and Sarah Pulis from Intopia have collectively worked in
the digital accessibility and inclusion for over thirty years. They
embrace the importance of usable accessibility in delivering a more
accessible outcome for people with disability. As strong advocates for
inclusive design, they are always looking for ways to build awareness
of accessibility as part of good user experience design, and work on
strategies for how to encourage more organisations to speak with
people with lived experience.

Laila Coulton is an experienced leader who is passionate about human
centred design, digital transformation and team leadership. Having
worked predominantly in large corporate environments Laila is well
practiced at navigating complex environments and driving
organisational change. Laila has led Digital Accessibility delivery
teams and is most proud of her work in the inclusive design space. A
mum of two boys, Laila is also an advocate for part time and flexible
working.


Re: Job Opening at Dell: Advisor to Services KM Taxonomy Strategy & Implementation #jobs

Eric Herberholz
 

I looked at the job requirements, and I may be suited for that role.
How much can you get for me on W2 for that position?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:55 AM Bit Rambusch <bit_rambusch@dell.com> wrote:

Good day everyone. I would like present an opening we have at Dell for your consideration. Please feel free to see the attachment for additional detail and contact me via LinkedIn or via the email below.



Come join a team that understands the value of knowledge across the enterprise and is passionate about it! We focus on ensuring that the right information is available at the right time to the right audience. Our focus spans end to end across the entire service lifecycle, and we drive programs to improve the creation, access, and leverage of knowledge to support business outcomes.

Our team is collaborative and innovative, and works closely with many stakeholder organizations including remote support, field, deployment, presales, serviceability, product management, and more.



A key opportunity in Knowledge Management is to define and drive a Services strategy for taxonomy, ontology, and governance. This includes designing, implementing, and tuning a Natural Language Processing (NLP) platform that is tightly integrated into an ontology-based Enterprise Knowledge Graph platform. It also includes working with the NLP Platform Product Manager to define and drive the overall business strategy for integrated taxonomy and namespace management.

Bit Rambusch

Vice President, e-Services & Knowledge Management

Dell Technologies Services

Bit.Rambusch@Dell.com


Job Opening at Dell: Advisor to Services KM Taxonomy Strategy & Implementation #jobs

 

Good day everyone.  I would like present an opening we have at Dell for your consideration.  Please feel free to see the attachment for additional detail and contact me via LinkedIn or via the email below.

 

Come join a team that understands the value of knowledge across the enterprise and is passionate about it!  We focus on ensuring that the right information is available at the right time to the right audience.  Our focus spans end to end across the entire service lifecycle, and we drive programs to improve the creation, access, and leverage of knowledge to support business outcomes.

Our team is collaborative and innovative, and works closely with many stakeholder organizations including remote support, field, deployment, presales, serviceability, product management, and more.

 

A key opportunity in Knowledge Management is to define and drive a Services strategy for taxonomy, ontology, and governance.   This includes designing, implementing, and tuning a Natural Language Processing (NLP) platform that is tightly integrated into an ontology-based Enterprise Knowledge Graph platform.  It also includes working with the NLP Platform Product Manager to define and drive the overall business strategy for integrated taxonomy and namespace management. 

Bit Rambusch

Vice President, e-Services & Knowledge Management

Dell Technologies Services

Bit.Rambusch@...


Re: Resource Questions #KM101 #question #resources

 

Great questions and great refresher for all of us.

 

Bill Kaplan

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stan Garfield via groups.io
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 08:31
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Resource Questions #question #introduction #resources

 

Julien, welcome to the community, and thanks for your post!

Here are my answers. I hope that other members will also respond.

>Where can I find a beginner guide to KM?

  1. Recommended Sites, Books, Blogs, Newsletters, Consultants, and Thought Leaders
  2. KM Books
  3. Learning about the field of Knowledge Management
  4. 10 Ways to Build Expertise in Knowledge Management
  5. Implementing a Successful KM Program

>Does anyone know of a solid KM glossary?

  1. This article contains links to multiple glossaries: Defining knowledge management: Toward an applied compendium by John Girard  and JoAnn Girard
  2. Glossary of Knowledge Management by Olivier Serrat
  3. Glossary of terms used in competitive intelligence and knowledge management by Vernon Prior
  4. Knowledge Management Glossary by Karl Wiig and Elisabeth Wiig
  5. Knowledge Management Glossary by APQC
  6. Knowledge Management Glossary by Reid G. Smith
  7. A glossary of terms associated with Knowledge Management technologies and solutions by the Delphi Group
  8. Knowledge Management (KM) Glossary by The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
  9. Glossary of Knowledge Management and Capacity Development by Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs
  10. 100 Knowledge Management Specialties, 50 KM Components, and 50 Alternative Names for KM by Stan Garfield

>Is there any literature on the most effective models of online communication, i.e., how to structure an email, a web page, how to layout information so it is ingested in the correct manner?

  1. Articles about Communications
  2. User Interface, User Experience & Usability for Knowledge Management

>open communication

>I can consult the archives of the SIKM mailing list, however private emails, chats and such other material are inaccessible to me.

  • This is why I redirect queries sent privately to me to this open community. I prefer to answer questions here rather than in private exchanges. This allows others to also benefit, and allows for others to also provide answers.


Re: Resource Questions #KM101 #question #resources

Stan Garfield
 

Julien, welcome to the community, and thanks for your post!

Here are my answers. I hope that other members will also respond.

>Where can I find a beginner guide to KM?
  1. Recommended Sites, Books, Blogs, Newsletters, Consultants, and Thought Leaders
  2. KM Books
  3. Learning about the field of Knowledge Management
  4. 10 Ways to Build Expertise in Knowledge Management
  5. Implementing a Successful KM Program
>Does anyone know of a solid KM glossary?
  1. This article contains links to multiple glossaries: Defining knowledge management: Toward an applied compendium by John Girard  and JoAnn Girard
  2. Glossary of Knowledge Management by Olivier Serrat
  3. Glossary of terms used in competitive intelligence and knowledge management by Vernon Prior
  4. Knowledge Management Glossary by Karl Wiig and Elisabeth Wiig
  5. Knowledge Management Glossary by APQC
  6. Knowledge Management Glossary by Reid G. Smith
  7. A glossary of terms associated with Knowledge Management technologies and solutions by the Delphi Group
  8. Knowledge Management (KM) Glossary by The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
  9. Glossary of Knowledge Management and Capacity Development by Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs
  10. 100 Knowledge Management Specialties, 50 KM Components, and 50 Alternative Names for KM by Stan Garfield
>Is there any literature on the most effective models of online communication, i.e., how to structure an email, a web page, how to layout information so it is ingested in the correct manner?
  1. Articles about Communications
  2. User Interface, User Experience & Usability for Knowledge Management
>open communication
>I can consult the archives of the SIKM mailing list, however private emails, chats and such other material are inaccessible to me.
  • This is why I redirect queries sent privately to me to this open community. I prefer to answer questions here rather than in private exchanges. This allows others to also benefit, and allows for others to also provide answers.


Resource Questions #KM101 #question #resources

Julien Tremblay-McLellan
 

  1. Intro
  2. Resource Questions
  3. Terminology questions

1- Intro

I'm Julien a Library and Information Science student in Ottawa.

I always like to visit a person's web presence to get an idea about them. The only useful infot are my 2 Linkedin articles, (auto-extension dialing, modern email signatures) the rest is just window dressing.

I am really into lexicography and terminologies. A principle that has been inhabiting me lately, is the Rumplestiltskin principle. I am also curious about opensource technologies.

2. Resource Questions

2.1-- Where can I find a beginner guide to KM ? such as communication, media and literature?

2.2-- Does anyone know of a solid KM glossary?

2.3-- Is there any literature on the most effective models of online communication, ie how to structure an email, a web page, how to layout information so it is ingested in the correct manner.

I try to apply the funnel principle that has been popularized by newspapers. Start with the most important and work done to the minutae however that doesn't count for the fact that regular writing is not so myopic especially when communicating to an other person.

3. Resource Questions

Is there a word for : open communication that can be indexed and consulted by a late comer. For example, I can consult the archives of the SIKM mailing list, however private emails, chats and such other material are unaccessible to me.

Is there a term for the open side of this phenomenon?

I believe the latter would be private communication? Yet the problem with the open and private terms is that they are note accurate. Group communication can be done openly by private means (usually emails) that can not be consulted by a new party that was not present at the time.

Also, what would you call : the phenomenon of having an open and above board web presence. For example, take Stan Garfield's web presence vs Gwern who remains as active yet completely anonymous hiding his human form.

The term "identity exposure" comes to mind, but it doesn't feel succinct.

Best,

Julien Tremblay McLellan

jtremc@...

613-618-6699


Re: KM ROI #value #question

Leif Edvinsson
 

Hello, good clarification. And the bottom line might be more than the traditional. 

fre 6 nov. 2020 kl. 17:24 skrev Fred Nickols <fred@...>:

P.S.  The piece I just posted a link to refers to a piece I published way back in 1979 titled "Finding the Bottom-Line Payoff of Training."  It could easily be retitled "Finding the Bottom-Line Payoff of KM" and the points would still be valid; namely, if you want to find the ROI of anything, you have to find it's bottom-line impact.  The link to this one is https://www.nickols.us/finding.pdf


Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker





-----Original Message-----
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:44 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM ROI #question

Back in 2011, I published a piece in the UK's Training Journal about the ROI of Training.  It is titled "The ROI of Training: Valid Mission or Quixotic Quest?"  I believe much of what I wrote there applies to trying to determine the ROI of KM as well.  For those interested, here's a link to the piece.  It's only a page and half long.  https://www.nickols.us/TJ_ROIofTraining.pdf

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker





-----Original Message-----
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Frank Guerino
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:21 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM ROI #question

Hi Matt,

You wrote: "A mature business should have something like a value driver tree that maps out contributions to value (which should include quality, customer sat, etc)."

- I would agree that it seems like they would.  However, even most very large and already successful companies and government organizations don't.
- Also, in the cases where I have seen such things, they're usually implemented and maintained by dedicated Architecture Organizations/Staff via Capability Models that highlight Maturity, Health and Impact Assessments.


You wrote: " However in less mature organisations, that understanding of the business might not exist. They may not even be able to allocate costs in an appropriate manner."

- True.  This would be a driver for becoming more mature because if they can't, then all metrics are mostly fabricated, since they're not mature enough to measure ROI of work performed.


You wrote: "In my experience, most non-finance executives could not correctly calculate an ROI (or an NPV for that matter) with a gun to their head.

- In my experience, it's rarely the executives who calculate ROI.  They just receive and review the reports, providing feedback for tactical and strategic improvements.
- In my experience, those who do perform such calculations are often not formally educated in finance but certainly do have significant financial knowledge from experience driven by the requirements of their jobs.  For example, I've worked with business and IT managers & executives who are brilliant at knowing and managing their finances, and I see such people in many organizations these days.  I'm certainly not a finance executive and have had more than my fair share of managing revenues, expenses, capitalizations, amortizations, and depreciations.  (Often, I wish I could forget what I know.)


You wrote: " When you start really digging into the assumptions and the numbers, most business cases have something dodgy somewhere."

- I would suggest that "dodgy" is in the eye of the beholder.  In the U.S., the IRS often gives broad guidelines for Good Accounting Practices (GAP), expensing, deducting, amortizing, etc., etc.  If you're not breaking the laws, how you interpret and stay within such guidelines often changes from company to company.  The most important thing is to simply be consistent, which is what professional auditors look for.  And, this brings up the point that most companies (especially public ones) use independent 3rd party auditors to keep them in check for reporting purposes.


On your point #5.  I fully agree.


My Best,

Frank
--
Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
Guerino1_Skype (S)


On 11/4/20, 7:44 PM, "Matt Moore" <main@SIKM.groups.io on behalf of matt@...> wrote:

    Frank,

    You are absolutely correct that you that ROI is a financial measure
    and has a standard form of calculation. And I fully agree that you
    need to link your initiatives to outcomes that resonate with
    executives. I would note some things.

    1. While time and quality are two common measures that you can link to
    finance, a lot of this depends on the nature of the business in
    question and its level of maturity. A mature business should have
    something like a value driver tree that maps out contributions to
    value (which should include quality, customer sat, etc). Being able to
    map your initiative to its impact on a key value driver is good thing.
    An acquaintance of mine started as the Head of Learning at a Finance
    Services company. He mapped the existing learning curriculum to the
    organisation's value driver tree and noted that 60% of the courses did
    not align to a value driver. Guess what his next step was.
    2. However in less mature organisations, that understanding of the
    business might not exist. They may not even be able to allocate costs
    in an appropriate manner. In that case, you either focus on the things
    they do understand (direct revenue or costs) or you are going to need
    to educate them (which is really hard).
    3. In my experience, most non-finance executives could not correctly
    calculate an ROI (or an NPV for that matter) with a gun to their head.
    I would expect the CFO to be able to do so (but I have been
    disappointed). Many execs (esp. sales and marketing) throw around the
    term but don't really know what it means.
    4. When you start really digging into the assumptions and the numbers,
    most business cases have something dodgy somewhere. I have put the
    same numbers in front of different senior executives and got radically
    different responses. I am especially sceptical of claims for impact of
    training courses without corresponding organisational change (e.g.
    KPIs).
    5. The thing I find most disappointing is how few organisations
    actually chase up projects and initiatives and review the outcomes
    compared to the business case. It does happen but nowhere near often
    enough. Which tells me something about the way that business cases and
    ROI calculations actually function to how we are told they function.

    The HBR have a handy guide if people are interested:
    https://store.hbr.org/product/hbr-tools-return-on-investment-roi/TLROI1

    Regards,

    Matt





















Re: KM ROI #value #question

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Frank,

The problem with the idea of going back and checking ROI against actual achievement is that ROI is simply a flawed metric in low-frequency, high-variability situations. It's not a matter of how "mature" you are, there will never be enough data -- measured directly. At best, solutions will be interpreted as "successful" or "failed" because of survivorship bias, not because of any inherent soundness to the decisions being taken.

A simple scenario: A company identifies that poor processes are sometimes leading to litigation and multi-million dollar payouts. They put in place a you-beaut technology which promises to improve these processes.

The very next year they lose another major suit in court again. "This is rubbish," the executives decide, and the project is canned. Now under the hood their risk has actually decreased 90% -- in reality, it was the best possible thing to do -- but because of that one high-value realisation of risk early, the ROI looks terrible.

As the frequency of events goes up, the more likely you are to establish a cluster of outcomes that can you can use to actively manage your organisation and determine whether process improvements are working. This is necessarily less certain than directly monitoring and adjusting to the results of a high volume of outcomes, but if this is not possible your best bet is to:

  • seek a high-volume metric that strongly correlates with high-value risk outcomes (caveat caveat, Hawthorne effect etc)
  • estimate an RROI on options to change that metric in a positive way

If even this isn't possible in a cost-effective way, the most rational choice of action is to simply ignore that the risk exists. Which describes more small businesses than you might think 😊

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 7/11/2020 3:16 am, Frank Guerino wrote:

Hi Stephen,

 

You wrote: “Any time you are seeking to implement an intangible benefit, or at least a strategy which will have an impact one degree or more away from a direct financial return (this mostly, but not always equates to marketing and/or brand reputation)”

 

  • I agree (more so with brand recognition/reputation than marketing, such as in the case of direct marketing, where such investments can still be correlated with impacts on sales revenue). 

 

Re: #1: Agreed.  DR is a very strong example.  However, even things like DR often still can and do get clearly written into bottom line expenses (deductibles) that can be measured against revenues for overall profits and ROIs.  DR ROI can be measured against time to recover, costs to recover, lost revenue for time down, etc., and they often are.

 

Re: #2: Saying that such items are “fatally” flawed may be a bit dramatic but I get your point.  The reality is that, where accurate measuring is not achievable, honest and competent people make their assessments based on educated guesses that they can often explain.

 

In short, I think that we agree on the premise that there is a science to ROI math that often bleeds into an art which drives how we come up with some of the numbers which we plug into our math.  In the cases where measurements cannot be accurate, educated guesses and even SWAGs often get reviewed and adjusted for improvements.   As I stated in my response to Matt, in the U.S. the key is to be consistent, leverage independent auditors (or other competent reviewers) to help stay within the guidelines of critical constraints set by your internal organizations like compliance or your external organizations like the U.S.’s IRS.

 

In the case of measurement against revenue generation, ROI is a live and constantly changing metric so there is constant oversight and re-evaluation.  In the case of DR, we often see the reality that very few organizations go back and measure the accuracy of their initial investments against their real costs and their down times & recovery times of their disasters because disasters are few and far between.  Only the most advanced organizations seem to.  Those that are not so mature simply suck up the costs of recovering and somehow role those costs into bottom line expenses (even if not clear as to why).

 

In the end, even “maturity” is a function of ROI.

 

My Best,

 

Frank

--

Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner

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

Guerino1_Skype (S)

 

 

From: <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply-To: <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 1:07 AM
To: <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM ROI #question

 

Hi Frank,

As Matt notes, all of these measures translate to "money" anyway. It's one of the key strengths and weaknesses of ROI.

Any time you are seeking to implement an intangible benefit, or at least a strategy which will have an impact one degree or more away from a direct financial return (this mostly, but not always equates to marketing and/or brand reputation), I am not a fan of ROI.

There are two reasons for this:

  1. Non-direct interventions will always have a range of financial impacts due to uncertainty. A sound initiative might have little impact on your bottom line one quarter and an outsized return in another (eg think disaster preparedness).

    In these scenarios, it is more productive to talk about RROI (= relative return on investment). This allows you to rank the relative impacts of various initiatives on things the company does value, which allows a quantifiable, challengable evaluation of why a particular strategy is the correct one without promising $X return for a particular quarter.
  2.  When you try and use ROI calculations for a non-ROI measure, too many people fall back on "X minutes saved * Y transactions a year = $Z BILLION saved in staff costs". 99% of the time, this is a fatally flawed approach due to the non-harvestable savings. You need to find a better, tangible proxy measure to target (eg # of complaints processed).

PS Patrick - Your Weick quote is so spot on in relation to middle management in any large corporation or government agency, where they are too far down to have major strategic influence, but too high up to have an operational role for day-to-day productivity.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

 


Re: KM ROI #value #question

Stephen Bounds
 

Ha! Almost too many zingers in that one to respond. Almost 😁

So what actually drives decision-making in organisations is rarely a
completely rational cost-benefit analysis. It's a mix of greed, pride,
cowardice, curiosity, compassion, and conformity.
I think this is an overly reductive list, but agree that more of our decisions are made out of emotion rather than rationality.

Very sharp observation about the fact that most organisations aren't one misstep away from catastrophic failure. On the flip side, I think it is worth noting that:

A) often the seeds of organisational failure are sown a long time before things go obviously and badly wrong, and
B) sometimes even good managers will "go down with the ship" if there is just too much negative momentum to reverse before disaster strikes

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 5/11/2020 7:02 pm, Matt Moore wrote:
Stephen,

I think that we disagree less that it appears but lets work this through.

"If I run a cross-stitch club, you could try and reduce its value to
tangible factors like "number of works produced", "average increase in
participant lifespan", or "haberdashery stores kept in business". But
somehow I feel like that is missing the point."

It does - but not all of your three tangible factors are equally tangible:
- "number of works produced" - pretty simple to measure - go along to
the end of year exhibition and maybe buy a cross-stitch minature of
Harry Styles if it takes your fancy.
- "average increase in participant lifespan" - That's actually quite
hard to measure and would require decades of data collection and some
serious actuarial work. It may sound tangible and rational and
objective but it's actually not a "tangible" measure in any practical
sense.
- "haberdashery stores kept in business" - Slightly easier but also
pretty tricky. You'd need to subpena the accounts of the stores in
question for analysis or test against a control group of stores where
a cross-stitch club isn't present.

But then a cross-stitch club, doesn't cost very much to run - nor
would it yield much revenue if you do - so you could probably get away
with "well, it makes people happy".

"For some organisations, we keep people happy in order to keep an
organisation working optimally for an extrinsic benefit (ie profit).
But conversely, some people are happy because an organisation is kept
going. Its optimum function is secondary to its intrinsic purpose."

So what actually drives decision-making in organisations is rarely a
completely rational cost-benefit analysis. It's a mix of greed, pride,
cowardice, curiosity, compassion, and conformity.

"That said, complete uncertainty is rare"

In most mature, sizeable organisations, this is true. Which is why
most decisions don't matter. They are not consequential. You can run a
mediocre marketing campaign and it won't matter. You can fire the
wrong people and the company will survive. Many senior execs in large
corporations believe that they have superior decision-making skills
and most of their decisions of life-or-death. But they need to justify
their exorbitant remuneration packages. If their decisions were
consequential then they would be far more interested in outcomes. More
organisations would compare the ROI predictions to actual outcomes.
But they don't. It is perhaps a testament to the robustness of the
institutions and systems that we have collectively built that most
decisions we make are inconsequential. Altho it does not fit well with
our chosen narrative of heroic leadership.

This isn't universally true. Sometimes even the most secure
organisation faces an existential threat. And some organisations
operate in scenarios where decisions have consequences - and also
where uncertainty is more common. One thing I like about the startup
world is that your decisions have consequences and you get to see
those consequences pretty darn quickly.

"outsource the decision making to a random number generator"

Or as some of us call it: "hold a capital allocation meeting and
compare ROI from business cases".

Regards,

Matt




Re: KM ROI #value #question

Frank Guerino
 

Hi Stephen,

 

You wrote: “Any time you are seeking to implement an intangible benefit, or at least a strategy which will have an impact one degree or more away from a direct financial return (this mostly, but not always equates to marketing and/or brand reputation)”

 

  • I agree (more so with brand recognition/reputation than marketing, such as in the case of direct marketing, where such investments can still be correlated with impacts on sales revenue). 

 

Re: #1: Agreed.  DR is a very strong example.  However, even things like DR often still can and do get clearly written into bottom line expenses (deductibles) that can be measured against revenues for overall profits and ROIs.  DR ROI can be measured against time to recover, costs to recover, lost revenue for time down, etc., and they often are.

 

Re: #2: Saying that such items are “fatally” flawed may be a bit dramatic but I get your point.  The reality is that, where accurate measuring is not achievable, honest and competent people make their assessments based on educated guesses that they can often explain.

 

In short, I think that we agree on the premise that there is a science to ROI math that often bleeds into an art which drives how we come up with some of the numbers which we plug into our math.  In the cases where measurements cannot be accurate, educated guesses and even SWAGs often get reviewed and adjusted for improvements.   As I stated in my response to Matt, in the U.S. the key is to be consistent, leverage independent auditors (or other competent reviewers) to help stay within the guidelines of critical constraints set by your internal organizations like compliance or your external organizations like the U.S.’s IRS.

 

In the case of measurement against revenue generation, ROI is a live and constantly changing metric so there is constant oversight and re-evaluation.  In the case of DR, we often see the reality that very few organizations go back and measure the accuracy of their initial investments against their real costs and their down times & recovery times of their disasters because disasters are few and far between.  Only the most advanced organizations seem to.  Those that are not so mature simply suck up the costs of recovering and somehow role those costs into bottom line expenses (even if not clear as to why).

 

In the end, even “maturity” is a function of ROI.

 

My Best,

 

Frank

--

Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner

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

Guerino1_Skype (S)

 

 

From: <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply-To: <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 1:07 AM
To: <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM ROI #question

 

Hi Frank,

As Matt notes, all of these measures translate to "money" anyway. It's one of the key strengths and weaknesses of ROI.

Any time you are seeking to implement an intangible benefit, or at least a strategy which will have an impact one degree or more away from a direct financial return (this mostly, but not always equates to marketing and/or brand reputation), I am not a fan of ROI.

There are two reasons for this:

  1. Non-direct interventions will always have a range of financial impacts due to uncertainty. A sound initiative might have little impact on your bottom line one quarter and an outsized return in another (eg think disaster preparedness).

    In these scenarios, it is more productive to talk about RROI (= relative return on investment). This allows you to rank the relative impacts of various initiatives on things the company does value, which allows a quantifiable, challengable evaluation of why a particular strategy is the correct one without promising $X return for a particular quarter.
  2.  When you try and use ROI calculations for a non-ROI measure, too many people fall back on "X minutes saved * Y transactions a year = $Z BILLION saved in staff costs". 99% of the time, this is a fatally flawed approach due to the non-harvestable savings. You need to find a better, tangible proxy measure to target (eg # of complaints processed).

PS Patrick - Your Weick quote is so spot on in relation to middle management in any large corporation or government agency, where they are too far down to have major strategic influence, but too high up to have an operational role for day-to-day productivity.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

 


Re: KM ROI #value #question

Fred Nickols
 

P.S. The piece I just posted a link to refers to a piece I published way back in 1979 titled "Finding the Bottom-Line Payoff of Training." It could easily be retitled "Finding the Bottom-Line Payoff of KM" and the points would still be valid; namely, if you want to find the ROI of anything, you have to find it's bottom-line impact. The link to this one is https://www.nickols.us/finding.pdf


Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

-----Original Message-----
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:44 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM ROI #question

Back in 2011, I published a piece in the UK's Training Journal about the ROI of Training. It is titled "The ROI of Training: Valid Mission or Quixotic Quest?" I believe much of what I wrote there applies to trying to determine the ROI of KM as well. For those interested, here's a link to the piece. It's only a page and half long. https://www.nickols.us/TJ_ROIofTraining.pdf

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker





-----Original Message-----
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Frank Guerino
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:21 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM ROI #question

Hi Matt,

You wrote: "A mature business should have something like a value driver tree that maps out contributions to value (which should include quality, customer sat, etc)."

- I would agree that it seems like they would. However, even most very large and already successful companies and government organizations don't.
- Also, in the cases where I have seen such things, they're usually implemented and maintained by dedicated Architecture Organizations/Staff via Capability Models that highlight Maturity, Health and Impact Assessments.


You wrote: " However in less mature organisations, that understanding of the business might not exist. They may not even be able to allocate costs in an appropriate manner."

- True. This would be a driver for becoming more mature because if they can't, then all metrics are mostly fabricated, since they're not mature enough to measure ROI of work performed.


You wrote: "In my experience, most non-finance executives could not correctly calculate an ROI (or an NPV for that matter) with a gun to their head.

- In my experience, it's rarely the executives who calculate ROI. They just receive and review the reports, providing feedback for tactical and strategic improvements.
- In my experience, those who do perform such calculations are often not formally educated in finance but certainly do have significant financial knowledge from experience driven by the requirements of their jobs. For example, I've worked with business and IT managers & executives who are brilliant at knowing and managing their finances, and I see such people in many organizations these days. I'm certainly not a finance executive and have had more than my fair share of managing revenues, expenses, capitalizations, amortizations, and depreciations. (Often, I wish I could forget what I know.)


You wrote: " When you start really digging into the assumptions and the numbers, most business cases have something dodgy somewhere."

- I would suggest that "dodgy" is in the eye of the beholder. In the U.S., the IRS often gives broad guidelines for Good Accounting Practices (GAP), expensing, deducting, amortizing, etc., etc. If you're not breaking the laws, how you interpret and stay within such guidelines often changes from company to company. The most important thing is to simply be consistent, which is what professional auditors look for. And, this brings up the point that most companies (especially public ones) use independent 3rd party auditors to keep them in check for reporting purposes.


On your point #5. I fully agree.


My Best,

Frank
--
Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
Guerino1_Skype (S)


On 11/4/20, 7:44 PM, "Matt Moore" <main@SIKM.groups.io on behalf of matt@innotecture.com.au> wrote:

Frank,

You are absolutely correct that you that ROI is a financial measure
and has a standard form of calculation. And I fully agree that you
need to link your initiatives to outcomes that resonate with
executives. I would note some things.

1. While time and quality are two common measures that you can link to
finance, a lot of this depends on the nature of the business in
question and its level of maturity. A mature business should have
something like a value driver tree that maps out contributions to
value (which should include quality, customer sat, etc). Being able to
map your initiative to its impact on a key value driver is good thing.
An acquaintance of mine started as the Head of Learning at a Finance
Services company. He mapped the existing learning curriculum to the
organisation's value driver tree and noted that 60% of the courses did
not align to a value driver. Guess what his next step was.
2. However in less mature organisations, that understanding of the
business might not exist. They may not even be able to allocate costs
in an appropriate manner. In that case, you either focus on the things
they do understand (direct revenue or costs) or you are going to need
to educate them (which is really hard).
3. In my experience, most non-finance executives could not correctly
calculate an ROI (or an NPV for that matter) with a gun to their head.
I would expect the CFO to be able to do so (but I have been
disappointed). Many execs (esp. sales and marketing) throw around the
term but don't really know what it means.
4. When you start really digging into the assumptions and the numbers,
most business cases have something dodgy somewhere. I have put the
same numbers in front of different senior executives and got radically
different responses. I am especially sceptical of claims for impact of
training courses without corresponding organisational change (e.g.
KPIs).
5. The thing I find most disappointing is how few organisations
actually chase up projects and initiatives and review the outcomes
compared to the business case. It does happen but nowhere near often
enough. Which tells me something about the way that business cases and
ROI calculations actually function to how we are told they function.

The HBR have a handy guide if people are interested:
https://store.hbr.org/product/hbr-tools-return-on-investment-roi/TLROI1

Regards,

Matt


Re: KM ROI #value #question

Fred Nickols
 

Back in 2011, I published a piece in the UK's Training Journal about the ROI of Training. It is titled "The ROI of Training: Valid Mission or Quixotic Quest?" I believe much of what I wrote there applies to trying to determine the ROI of KM as well. For those interested, here's a link to the piece. It's only a page and half long. https://www.nickols.us/TJ_ROIofTraining.pdf

Regards,

Fred Nickols, Knowledge Worker

-----Original Message-----
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Frank Guerino
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:21 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM ROI #question

Hi Matt,

You wrote: "A mature business should have something like a value driver tree that maps out contributions to value (which should include quality, customer sat, etc)."

- I would agree that it seems like they would. However, even most very large and already successful companies and government organizations don't.
- Also, in the cases where I have seen such things, they're usually implemented and maintained by dedicated Architecture Organizations/Staff via Capability Models that highlight Maturity, Health and Impact Assessments.


You wrote: " However in less mature organisations, that understanding of the business might not exist. They may not even be able to allocate costs in an appropriate manner."

- True. This would be a driver for becoming more mature because if they can't, then all metrics are mostly fabricated, since they're not mature enough to measure ROI of work performed.


You wrote: "In my experience, most non-finance executives could not correctly calculate an ROI (or an NPV for that matter) with a gun to their head.

- In my experience, it's rarely the executives who calculate ROI. They just receive and review the reports, providing feedback for tactical and strategic improvements.
- In my experience, those who do perform such calculations are often not formally educated in finance but certainly do have significant financial knowledge from experience driven by the requirements of their jobs. For example, I've worked with business and IT managers & executives who are brilliant at knowing and managing their finances, and I see such people in many organizations these days. I'm certainly not a finance executive and have had more than my fair share of managing revenues, expenses, capitalizations, amortizations, and depreciations. (Often, I wish I could forget what I know.)


You wrote: " When you start really digging into the assumptions and the numbers, most business cases have something dodgy somewhere."

- I would suggest that "dodgy" is in the eye of the beholder. In the U.S., the IRS often gives broad guidelines for Good Accounting Practices (GAP), expensing, deducting, amortizing, etc., etc. If you're not breaking the laws, how you interpret and stay within such guidelines often changes from company to company. The most important thing is to simply be consistent, which is what professional auditors look for. And, this brings up the point that most companies (especially public ones) use independent 3rd party auditors to keep them in check for reporting purposes.


On your point #5. I fully agree.


My Best,

Frank
--
Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
Guerino1_Skype (S)


On 11/4/20, 7:44 PM, "Matt Moore" <main@SIKM.groups.io on behalf of matt@innotecture.com.au> wrote:

Frank,

You are absolutely correct that you that ROI is a financial measure
and has a standard form of calculation. And I fully agree that you
need to link your initiatives to outcomes that resonate with
executives. I would note some things.

1. While time and quality are two common measures that you can link to
finance, a lot of this depends on the nature of the business in
question and its level of maturity. A mature business should have
something like a value driver tree that maps out contributions to
value (which should include quality, customer sat, etc). Being able to
map your initiative to its impact on a key value driver is good thing.
An acquaintance of mine started as the Head of Learning at a Finance
Services company. He mapped the existing learning curriculum to the
organisation's value driver tree and noted that 60% of the courses did
not align to a value driver. Guess what his next step was.
2. However in less mature organisations, that understanding of the
business might not exist. They may not even be able to allocate costs
in an appropriate manner. In that case, you either focus on the things
they do understand (direct revenue or costs) or you are going to need
to educate them (which is really hard).
3. In my experience, most non-finance executives could not correctly
calculate an ROI (or an NPV for that matter) with a gun to their head.
I would expect the CFO to be able to do so (but I have been
disappointed). Many execs (esp. sales and marketing) throw around the
term but don't really know what it means.
4. When you start really digging into the assumptions and the numbers,
most business cases have something dodgy somewhere. I have put the
same numbers in front of different senior executives and got radically
different responses. I am especially sceptical of claims for impact of
training courses without corresponding organisational change (e.g.
KPIs).
5. The thing I find most disappointing is how few organisations
actually chase up projects and initiatives and review the outcomes
compared to the business case. It does happen but nowhere near often
enough. Which tells me something about the way that business cases and
ROI calculations actually function to how we are told they function.

The HBR have a handy guide if people are interested:
https://store.hbr.org/product/hbr-tools-return-on-investment-roi/TLROI1

Regards,

Matt


Re: Poll on ISO 30401 KMS visibility and applicability - feedback #standards #poll

Santhosh Shekar
 

Patrick, you could have it looked up in my LinkedIn poll comments, when you have time. You will find the most diverse views !! In fact it has been a eye opener for me personally. 

Regards,
Santhosh Shekar

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 12:34 pm Patrick Lambe, <plambe@...> wrote:
So this is 51 people out of the 191 people (56%) who thought the standard was a waste of time?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 6 Nov 2020, at 4:16 PM, Santhosh Shekar <santhoshshekar@...> wrote:

I have taken them from the comments, to represent different school of thoughts. I think I should have explicitly mentioned it.

Will highlight it in the website comments. Thanks for askng!! 

Regards,
Santhosh Shekar

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 10:27 am Patrick Lambe, <plambe@...> wrote:
Thanks Santhosh. Can you clarify if the 51 respondents who thought the standard was a “complete waste of time” comes from the sample of 191 respondents, or is a separate sample?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 6 Nov 2020, at 2:09 PM, Santhosh Shekar <santhoshshekar@...> wrote:

Dear All,

Thank you very much for making the poll a good starting point of discussion around KM standards.

Many would have already seen the Poll Result report on realKM; thanks to @Bruce Boyes for getting it published. 
For those who have missed the report and to make this thread complete. Please find the link here.



Thank you,
Santhosh Shekar 






On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:50 AM Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:
Hi David,

Different people talk about knowledge management and aspects of it in different ways. The Standard aims to bring some common way of understanding, identifying and measuring whether an organisation is delivering against it, at least at a high level.



--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
Knowledge management consulting & KCS Trainer
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:55 PM David Eddy <deddy@...> wrote:
Santhosh -

>
We need a common language
>

What is meant by this term, “common language?

- DavidE







<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg><SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>


Re: KM ROI #value #question

Frank Guerino
 

Hi Matt,

You wrote: "A mature business should have something like a value driver tree that maps out contributions to value (which should include quality, customer sat, etc)."

- I would agree that it seems like they would. However, even most very large and already successful companies and government organizations don't.
- Also, in the cases where I have seen such things, they're usually implemented and maintained by dedicated Architecture Organizations/Staff via Capability Models that highlight Maturity, Health and Impact Assessments.


You wrote: " However in less mature organisations, that understanding of the business might not exist. They may not even be able to allocate costs in an appropriate manner."

- True. This would be a driver for becoming more mature because if they can't, then all metrics are mostly fabricated, since they're not mature enough to measure ROI of work performed.


You wrote: "In my experience, most non-finance executives could not correctly calculate an ROI (or an NPV for that matter) with a gun to their head.

- In my experience, it's rarely the executives who calculate ROI. They just receive and review the reports, providing feedback for tactical and strategic improvements.
- In my experience, those who do perform such calculations are often not formally educated in finance but certainly do have significant financial knowledge from experience driven by the requirements of their jobs. For example, I've worked with business and IT managers & executives who are brilliant at knowing and managing their finances, and I see such people in many organizations these days. I'm certainly not a finance executive and have had more than my fair share of managing revenues, expenses, capitalizations, amortizations, and depreciations. (Often, I wish I could forget what I know.)


You wrote: " When you start really digging into the assumptions and the numbers, most business cases have something dodgy somewhere."

- I would suggest that "dodgy" is in the eye of the beholder. In the U.S., the IRS often gives broad guidelines for Good Accounting Practices (GAP), expensing, deducting, amortizing, etc., etc. If you're not breaking the laws, how you interpret and stay within such guidelines often changes from company to company. The most important thing is to simply be consistent, which is what professional auditors look for. And, this brings up the point that most companies (especially public ones) use independent 3rd party auditors to keep them in check for reporting purposes.


On your point #5. I fully agree.


My Best,

Frank
--
Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
Guerino1_Skype (S)


On 11/4/20, 7:44 PM, "Matt Moore" <main@SIKM.groups.io on behalf of matt@innotecture.com.au> wrote:

Frank,

You are absolutely correct that you that ROI is a financial measure
and has a standard form of calculation. And I fully agree that you
need to link your initiatives to outcomes that resonate with
executives. I would note some things.

1. While time and quality are two common measures that you can link to
finance, a lot of this depends on the nature of the business in
question and its level of maturity. A mature business should have
something like a value driver tree that maps out contributions to
value (which should include quality, customer sat, etc). Being able to
map your initiative to its impact on a key value driver is good thing.
An acquaintance of mine started as the Head of Learning at a Finance
Services company. He mapped the existing learning curriculum to the
organisation's value driver tree and noted that 60% of the courses did
not align to a value driver. Guess what his next step was.
2. However in less mature organisations, that understanding of the
business might not exist. They may not even be able to allocate costs
in an appropriate manner. In that case, you either focus on the things
they do understand (direct revenue or costs) or you are going to need
to educate them (which is really hard).
3. In my experience, most non-finance executives could not correctly
calculate an ROI (or an NPV for that matter) with a gun to their head.
I would expect the CFO to be able to do so (but I have been
disappointed). Many execs (esp. sales and marketing) throw around the
term but don't really know what it means.
4. When you start really digging into the assumptions and the numbers,
most business cases have something dodgy somewhere. I have put the
same numbers in front of different senior executives and got radically
different responses. I am especially sceptical of claims for impact of
training courses without corresponding organisational change (e.g.
KPIs).
5. The thing I find most disappointing is how few organisations
actually chase up projects and initiatives and review the outcomes
compared to the business case. It does happen but nowhere near often
enough. Which tells me something about the way that business cases and
ROI calculations actually function to how we are told they function.

The HBR have a handy guide if people are interested:
https://store.hbr.org/product/hbr-tools-return-on-investment-roi/TLROI1

Regards,

Matt


Re: Poll on ISO 30401 KMS visibility and applicability - feedback #standards #poll

Patrick Lambe
 

So this is 51 people out of the 191 people (56%) who thought the standard was a waste of time?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 6 Nov 2020, at 4:16 PM, Santhosh Shekar <santhoshshekar@...> wrote:

I have taken them from the comments, to represent different school of thoughts. I think I should have explicitly mentioned it.

Will highlight it in the website comments. Thanks for askng!! 

Regards,
Santhosh Shekar

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 10:27 am Patrick Lambe, <plambe@...> wrote:
Thanks Santhosh. Can you clarify if the 51 respondents who thought the standard was a “complete waste of time” comes from the sample of 191 respondents, or is a separate sample?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 6 Nov 2020, at 2:09 PM, Santhosh Shekar <santhoshshekar@...> wrote:

Dear All,

Thank you very much for making the poll a good starting point of discussion around KM standards.

Many would have already seen the Poll Result report on realKM; thanks to @Bruce Boyes for getting it published. 
For those who have missed the report and to make this thread complete. Please find the link here.



Thank you,
Santhosh Shekar 






On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:50 AM Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:
Hi David,

Different people talk about knowledge management and aspects of it in different ways. The Standard aims to bring some common way of understanding, identifying and measuring whether an organisation is delivering against it, at least at a high level.



--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
Knowledge management consulting & KCS Trainer
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:55 PM David Eddy <deddy@...> wrote:
Santhosh -

>
We need a common language
>

What is meant by this term, “common language?

- DavidE







<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg><SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>


Re: Poll on ISO 30401 KMS visibility and applicability - feedback #standards #poll

Santhosh Shekar
 

I have taken them from the comments, to represent different school of thoughts. I think I should have explicitly mentioned it.

Will highlight it in the website comments. Thanks for askng!! 

Regards,
Santhosh Shekar

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 10:27 am Patrick Lambe, <plambe@...> wrote:
Thanks Santhosh. Can you clarify if the 51 respondents who thought the standard was a “complete waste of time” comes from the sample of 191 respondents, or is a separate sample?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 6 Nov 2020, at 2:09 PM, Santhosh Shekar <santhoshshekar@...> wrote:

Dear All,

Thank you very much for making the poll a good starting point of discussion around KM standards.

Many would have already seen the Poll Result report on realKM; thanks to @Bruce Boyes for getting it published. 
For those who have missed the report and to make this thread complete. Please find the link here.



Thank you,
Santhosh Shekar 






On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:50 AM Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:
Hi David,

Different people talk about knowledge management and aspects of it in different ways. The Standard aims to bring some common way of understanding, identifying and measuring whether an organisation is delivering against it, at least at a high level.



--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
Knowledge management consulting & KCS Trainer
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:55 PM David Eddy <deddy@...> wrote:
Santhosh -

>
We need a common language
>

What is meant by this term, “common language?

- DavidE






Re: Poll on ISO 30401 KMS visibility and applicability - feedback #standards #poll

Patrick Lambe
 

Thanks Santhosh. Can you clarify if the 51 respondents who thought the standard was a “complete waste of time” comes from the sample of 191 respondents, or is a separate sample?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 6 Nov 2020, at 2:09 PM, Santhosh Shekar <santhoshshekar@...> wrote:

Dear All,

Thank you very much for making the poll a good starting point of discussion around KM standards.

Many would have already seen the Poll Result report on realKM; thanks to @Bruce Boyes for getting it published. 
For those who have missed the report and to make this thread complete. Please find the link here.



Thank you,
Santhosh Shekar 






On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:50 AM Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:
Hi David,

Different people talk about knowledge management and aspects of it in different ways. The Standard aims to bring some common way of understanding, identifying and measuring whether an organisation is delivering against it, at least at a high level.



--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
Knowledge management consulting & KCS Trainer
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:55 PM David Eddy <deddy@...> wrote:
Santhosh -

>
We need a common language
>

What is meant by this term, “common language?

- DavidE






Re: Poll on ISO 30401 KMS visibility and applicability - feedback #standards #poll

Santhosh Shekar
 

Dear All,


Thank you very much for making the poll a good starting point of discussion around KM standards.


Many would have already seen the Poll Result report on realKM; thanks to @Bruce Boyes for getting it published. 

For those who have missed the report and to make this thread complete. Please find the link here.


https://realkm.com/2020/10/31/iso-30401-visibility-and-applicability-poll-report/



Thank you,

Santhosh Shekar 







On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:50 AM Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:
Hi David,

Different people talk about knowledge management and aspects of it in different ways. The Standard aims to bring some common way of understanding, identifying and measuring whether an organisation is delivering against it, at least at a high level.



--

Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
Knowledge management consulting & KCS Trainer
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com


On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:55 PM David Eddy <deddy@...> wrote:
Santhosh -

>
We need a common language
>

What is meant by this term, “common language?

- DavidE

1281 - 1300 of 9601