Date   

Comms and messaging plan/approach for KM team #communications

Vandana Wadhawan
 

Hi all,

I’m need help around various approaches that a KM team can adopt to increase their visibility within an enterprise!

Has anyone worked on a strategy for Comms & messaging around KM solutions their team provided?

Please share what approaches, strategy and methods worked for you!

Regards,
Vandana


--
Vandana W


Re: Tools disrupting KM #search #tools #state-of-KM

Dennis Thomas
 

Eudald,

Many people in KM consider data and information to be knowledge.  We believe that data and information  equates to only about 15% of knowledge.  The other 85% is the applied theory or rational intelligence that gives data it context, meaning, and purpose.  This is true for information too (PDF, Word Docs, PowerPoint presentations, etc.). Its all part of the info glut problem.  

Both manual and knowledge workers need to learn the how, why, and what-if knowledge related to the situations and circumstances of their work environment.   What good is more data and information if people don’t know how to use it?

Another huge and persistent problem is that if people cannot get the knowledge they need to do their jobs, they either invent what they need to do on their own, which may be wrong, or they put off doing anything.  On average, 5.3 hrs is lost per week as a direct result of not getting USEABLE knowledge they can apply.  So the idea of finding someone who can answer your question is slightly naive.  People are busy on their own projects. Research shows that 70% of workers complain about the availability of managers and coworkers being available to answer their questions.  

Many KMer’s think that AI, ML, NLP, holds the answer, but in reality, most adhere to the ideals of big business that can sfford their consulting fees.  There are 10s of millions of small and medium size companies that don’t have enough data to justify Machine Learning, or the money to pay for it.  Keep in mind that the bloom is off the rose because the failure rate of AI and ML programs is as high as 65% according to Forbes.  Industry people know that the failure rate is much higher.

My recommendation is to set your sites on a simple program that catalogues and indexes lessons-learned strategies, tasks, and processes that people can readily understand and use.  This practical approach might make more sense to you.  Remember, senior level programmers make $125 per hour.  They are like artists who are deeply experienced with the multitudes of platforms, open source software libraries, and utilities that they can integrate to save you money while delivering a FUNCTIONAL application.   Their personalities can be challenging, but if fairly treated and properly directed, you will get the result you want. 

Good luck! 
-- 
DL Thomas

On March 24, 2021 at 2:46:42 PM, Matt Moore (matt@...) wrote:

Eudald,

“I truly believe that the trend will be just to index what is considered the key information of a company”

So what do you think is considered the key information of a company?

Regards,

Matt Moore
+61 423 784 504
On Mar 23, 2021, at 7:36 PM, Eudald Camprubi <eudald@...> wrote:

I truly believe that the trend will be just to index what is considered the key information of a company






Re: Tools disrupting KM #search #tools #state-of-KM

Matt Moore
 

Eudald,

“I truly believe that the trend will be just to index what is considered the key information of a company”

So what do you think is considered the key information of a company?

Regards,

Matt Moore
+61 423 784 504

On Mar 23, 2021, at 7:36 PM, Eudald Camprubi <eudald@flaps.io> wrote:

I truly believe that the trend will be just to index what is considered the key information of a company


Re: CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM chartership and what about consultants? #certification #consulting

Douglas Weidner
 

Further, on the concept of knowledge cafes, aka World Cafe.

At the KM Institute, we have been teaching an entire module on K Cafes...not just the traditional one, which we call the 'Traditional K Cafe', but three variations as well, e.g. the 'KM Solutions Cafe', the 'KM Buzz Session', and the 'Innovative K Cafe'.

Why? 

Because we learned long ago that the K Cafe is an exceptionally powerful and easily mastered technique for KM Practitioners in the K Age...whatever their KM experience level. So, mastery of K Cafes are an integral component (aka Learning Objective) of all levels of KM Certification, even the pre-cert, basic primer, the KM101.

Result. Our over 10,000 graduates since June 2001 have consistently rated the K Cafe as one of the best, most easily implemented and beneficial takeaways. We don't tout K Cafes as being KM, per se, but do recommend it as an essential 'Quick Win' in our KM and Transformational Change Mgmt toolbox.

Douglas Weidner
Chief CKM Instructor
Exec Chairman, KM Institute

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 8:32 AM Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...> wrote:

Good catch.  The idea was to highlight a large group interaction that everyone would believe was typical.  Technically, it shouldn’t be World Café … but if there was a good representative large group interaction…  It’s sort of like facial tissue and Kleenex.    I do, however, think one should be picked to make things as concrete as possible.

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 7:05 PM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Hi Robert,

I really like what you're saying but I was a bit surprised to see you singling out World Cafés. Can you expand a bit on why you see this as essential?

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 23/03/2021 12:49 am, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

Stephen –

 

I don’t think you’re off track but I’d like to share a trick that was shared with me – that may give you a more productive track.

 

About 2010 I wrote a course for Microsoft “Implementing ECM on SharePoint.”  It was for their partners and enterprise customers.  We got very caught up in the best way to do things for the largest organizations and the challenges that they might encounter.  My client and friend suggested that I consider 80%-80% as a rule.  What is about 80% of what someone would need to know for the deployments that were in the implementation of the bottom 80% of the market.  Later in the project we used the idea that you’ve got an expert running the project but you just need to know enough to communicate with them intelligently.  What would you need to know?

 

For me, I think in the core skills category, there’s at least an introduction to motivation.  I think there’s a bit of systems thinking.  There’s a bit of community building.

 

I could probably keep going and identify some broad areas… and underneath that define what key skills, behaviors, or techniques that I think everyone should know about, and then I’d decide what level they’d have to know.  For instance, I think everyone should understand World Café – not because they have to run it but because they should understand how and why it works.  I’d put this as a requisite skill for any KM practitioner at any level.

 

I think foundations on trust are essential.  I’d make the key skill identification of behaviors that erode trust.  They don’t have to solve them… just see them and be able to research/learn more or get a lead involved to help fix it.

 

I could go on… I think that you’re trying to solve the right problem but I’m not sure the approach to decomposition will lead to the results you desire.  I think that you’ll be better off to think about the kind of person that you’d like to mentor and what you want them to know at or near the beginning of their career.  (This is the same as above just reframed.)

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 10:31 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Amazing stuff Robert -- thanks!

You've put your finger on one of the key problems with KM certification: What does the role of an associate / beginner KM professional look like? Does such a thing exist?

It would have to incorporate some of the skills that will develop into a more expert role down the line, otherwise there's no meaningful connection or progression between the two. But it can't be so complex in terms of experience or otherwise, as you say, practitioners will be less likely to think they need it (especially if they already have a postgraduate qualification) and the market demand to possess the formal certification is likely to remain low.

So we need both a starting point and a pathway. There are three basic ways I can think of to organise a profession:

  1. Tiered roles primarily distinguished by experience and competence, eg Project Coordinator (Project+) -> Project Manager (PMP) -> Program Manager
  2. Base entry role leading to multiple specialisations, eg Service Desk Operator -> System Administrator -> ICT Manager / Solutions Architect / Database Administrator / etc
  3. Multiple entry roles, each with different career advancement paths, eg Nurse -> Nurse Practitioner / Remote Medicine vs Doctor -> GP / Surgeon / ENT etc

I believe there has previously been an assumption (including by me) that any "basic" KM role would be oriented linearly towards more expert KM opportunities.

However, when I attempted at documenting a typology of KM roles a while back, I divided them without a great deal of thought into senior and operational roles. Now I am wondering whether it would be better to think of them as two separate career streams:

  1. Strategic roles
    1. Knowledge Program Manager
    2. Knowledge Manager
    3. Knowledge Architect
  1. Operational roles
    1. Knowledge Process Manager
    2. Knowledge Analyst
    3. Knowledge Process Officer

It seems unlikely that a deep understanding of ISO30401 would greatly benefit the operational type of role. On the other hand I believe it would be possible to outline a pragmatic curriculum to improve effectiveness, teach fundamentals (ie what a complex system is and why it matters) and a common set of terminology and methods recommended for adoption. It would fit the bill for meaningful competence training without a great deal of prior experience and match the described market need for most base to mid level KM roles.

On the other hand, a strategic role benefits more from study in complex systems, individual and group psychology, and information sciences along with training in key KM methods for diagnosing problems and then designing, implementing and managing new and effective KM interventions (often implemented by the operational roles). These are meaty subjects that are probably best suited to tertiary study, along with significant hands-on experience (or a simulation of the real thing). It seems unlikely that we'll ever achieve meaningful certification for these types of roles -- perhaps a "gold standard" style PMP if we're lucky and with a significant increase in market demand. (There will also likely be far fewer full-time roles in this space with a tendency towards consultations.)

Could be completely on the wrong track of course. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 22/03/2021 10:32 pm, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

Sorry I’m late to the party but allow me to offer a few thoughts based on my experience in a couple of different arenas.

 

First, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that certification is an indication that someone has met the standard.  The problem, as Patrick and Murray point to, is that we don’t have a standard.

 

Having been involved in the certification process for a vendor and an industry association, I can tell you setting a standard isn’t as easy as it seems and it can easily be drawn into a bad place by the subject matter experts deciding that their area of specialty is the most important.   (It can equally be pulled off by people who are not practical.  I’ll get to that in a moment.)  When you’re building a fundamentals, or baseline, certification it’s easy enough to select the key things that everyone should know.  The fundamental models (correct or not) that people should be aware of since they’re likely to encounter them.  It becomes difficult, as Patrick points to when you get to the point of the knowledge being specialized.

 

The answer then is – and should be – to develop the associate/beginner certification which includes the things that everyone should know.  Connecting this to academia – it’s all the stuff that goes in the 101 course for other disciplines.  The advanced stuff doesn’t psychometrically validate well and setting a “cut score” becomes challenging.  Consider an exam and certification with four major areas.  Let’s say that someone demonstrates good competency in three of the four areas but has no knowledge whatsoever in the fourth.  You end up with 85/85/85/20 resulting in a 68.75%.  Should that be passing?  (By the way, I assume 20% because I’m assuming multiple choice 5 answer questions and pure guesses since they psychometrically validate well.)  Cut scores are generally set around 70%.  However, the more challenging problem is that the certification meets a standard.  One should reasonably expect that someone certified should know all four content areas.  (This was precisely a question I had to help answer on an exam/certification that failed in the market.)

 

The second truth to advanced certifications is that they’re not profitable.  You don’t drive enough volume to justify your development costs.  Years ago the most lucrative certification was A+ for CompTIA because of the volume.  It served a real place in the market.  The “big box” retailers needed a way to certify their computer technicians.  It drove a ton of volume.   So while subject matter experts want to work on advanced certifications, it’s the wrong place to go if you want the market to move.  My work with the Server+ certification is public knowledge so I can say that while we did the right things for skills match there wasn’t a market demand because no one used it as a screening criteria for candidates.

 

I can tell you if you include too many people’s personal beliefs into what’s important it will sink the validity of the certification.  The market won’t care and they won’t interpret it as valid.  The reason that A+ worked is because it was directly relevant to the job skills necessary to be successful.  Doing that with a more heuristic role is exponentially more difficult.

 

Let me share my experience with my work on change management.  Change management suffers the same fate as KM relative to certification.  In their case ACMP is pushing their CCMP certification which is based on their “Standard.” (literally that’s what it’s called.)  The problem is the standard is garbage.  It’s a project management approach to change management that just doesn’t work but they’re still off certifying people because it’s something.  The Change Management Institute (CMI) is certifying folks but they’ve got a sole-source training contract with a vendor and a body of knowledge that got pulled into a book and really unwound.  It turned into a mishmash of everything that someone might want to know with no focus.  Prosci is the big commercial player and they’re certifying people on their model.  The problem is that it doesn’t make people broadly more able to manage change.  I put together what I think are fundamentals to the profession but then again I’m building training.  I don’t care about certifying people because I want them to have the skills and I don’t think I could set the standard if I want to.  Neither of the industry associations are doing an effective job at creating an entry level certification that indicates basic competence.

 

(Sidebar: Consider the fact that there’s very little difference between the skills necessary for change management and knowledge management.  The core skills overlap is very large.)

 

Let me shift to project management where PMI has their PMP.  Everyone thinks about this as the “gold standard.”  It requires experience.  It’s relatively difficult.  The problem is that it’s too hard for the project coordinators that a project or program manager needs to manage projects.  The result, is that project coordinators (lower level staff) get certified with CompTIA’s Project+.  It’s a step towards project management’s gold standard PMP certification but indicates baseline skills and lexicon that a PMP certified project manager should expect.  As a result, it’s successful.  So while PMI is successful with their PMP program, it’s a bit in spite of themselves.  Others in the market filled the gap.

 

However, PMI raises an interesting point… Do you have to have experience to get the certification?  My answer is an emphatic no.  However, as a certification provider you want the answer to be yes.  Because you want to demonstrate that your certification is higher value.  However, I’ve met people with the same first year experience twenty times – and people that have crammed 20 years of experience into less than a year.  So in my mind, experience means nothing.  However, it guards the certification provider against the claim that people don’t know the things that the certification is supposed to ensure.  (Paper MCSEs was common for the Windows NT 4 days because people couldn’t do the work.)  My answer to this is improve the relevance of your questions to the real world skills that people are being asked to demonstrate.

 

Oh, and ACMP requires that you demonstrate 21 hours of training from one of their qualified training providers – or you come up with some way of them agreeing that you’ve done 21 hours of training.  As most of you here know, I’ve read and reviewed a book every single week for several years.  I’ve got 270 book reviews on the confident change management site.  However, it’s unclear if they’d count this as “training.”  As a point of fact, I applied to become one of their qualified education providers and my application was denied.  The point of this – requiring training to get a certification is not a good idea for a certification.  At the same time, I recognize and support the reason why training providers have to do this.  The market demands it of them.  In the absence of a good certification, any certification will do.

 

In short, we need an entry level certification for KM that works from the mode of the things that everyone needs to know, that’s practical to the real work we all do (and the others on our team do).

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Murray Jennex via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:08 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

I would argue that it is not the lack of a body of knowledge that makes certification difficult, it is the lack of standard outcomes and how to achieve them that makes certification impossible as there is not a measuring stick to measure against, hence you can't certify anyone to a base level of performance......murray jennex 



-----Original Message-----
From: bill@... <bill@...>
To: main@sikm.groups.io <main@sikm.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 12:42 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

All great points Patrick!

 

Thank you 

 

Bill

Bill Kaplan

Founder

Working Knowledge CSP

 

 





On Mar 21, 2021, at 23:13, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

 Thanks Bill. I especially like the way you advocate separation between certification and training. However while the Body of Knowledge (BOK) approach does appear at first sight to hold value, some providers have merged their training content with “BOK” claims, thus blurring that separation. We still lack independent means of verifying a body of knowledge around KM, and I think we are still a very long way off from having anything that is sufficiently diverse and deep to cover the diversity of work contexts we deal with.

 

What I like about the CILIP offering is that it is practical. It advances the experience-based evaluation of KM practices, using portfolio building, mentors and the mechanism of peer review. That is a framework we have sadly lacked in the past.

 

There is no lack of training in KM, whether “certification”-oriented or otherwise and my instinct would be that (aside from foundational education programmes in KM), there may be more value in seeking out specialised training in deep niches for the specialised aspects of KM we may be dealing with at any given time. 

 

KM practices and needs (as you point out) are so diverse that I am not sure how valuable a generalised (context-free) certification course can be, aside from building some foundational knowledge, which is useful for beginners but rapidly loses value when we get into more specialised areas of work. That is precisely the same problem that a BOK approach runs into.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone: 

+65 98528511

web: 

www.straitsknowledge.com
resources: 

www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping: 

www.aithinsoftware.com



<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 1:53 PM, bill@... wrote:

 

Stephen and Patrick--

 

This subject resurfaces regularly.  I can share two Linked In articles I posted on certification in KM and why it cannot yet exist.  The articles share many of your points.

 

 

Training organizations offer “certification” but in reality the “certification” is a certificate demonstrating completion of offered training. While there may be personal value in taking the training it is not certification around a body of knowledge.

 

 

best

 

Bill

 

 

<image002.png>

 

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

 

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 21:29
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Hi Patrick,

I'm very much looking forward to this session. BTW, I ended up re-reading a 2006 article of yours and think it is definitely worth considering to what extent CILIP is or is not a "certification" program, noting the the challenges and goals you outlined so nicely back then.

I have taken the liberty of lightly revising what you wrote to reflect my assessment of our present situation as per the below:

What would you expect to see in a professional KM certification programme?

A "strong" KM certification programme would need diverse instructional and testing in:

  1. Knowledge: taught input and verbal testing (ie describe the difference between a knowledge strategy and a knowledge management strategy)
  2. Skills: demonstration, supervised practice and outcomes based testing (ie put together a project plan for a knowledge audit; conduct an after action review session for a project team)
  3. Attitudes and Values: cannot be taught or tested, can only be modelled and observed in an environment of continuing professional interaction and peer review
  4. Aptitudes: cannot be taught, can only be uncovered and fostered over time, most likely in a mentoring/coaching kind of partnership

And therefore a good KM certification programme would need to have:

  1. taught and examined knowledge input
  2. guided and assessed practice
  3. continuing professional interaction and peer review over time
  4. mentoring and coaching structures

Professional societies or networks are clearly the best candidates for providing this combination of features: as good as universities are, few of them are well placed to develop and deliver the practice based skills and professional interaction areas. To avoid the inevitable distortions of commercial gain, certification and training courses in KM should be not-for-profit and non-commercial in nature.

A problem is that -- with the possible exception of the ISO 30401 KMS standard -- there is still no commonly accepted set of concepts, theories and practices that embody KM. As such we must acknowledge that from the "knowledge" point of view (as distinct from skills, values and aptitudes), any certification is likely to only represent one perspective among many.

Based on what I know of the CILIP chartership, my assessment is that the focus is primarily on demonstrated skills. There is definitely some intent to test demonstrated attitudes and values as well, but it appears to be neither designed or intended to address the knowledge or aptitude components of a hypothetical "certification".

Having this option still represents a significant leap forward from the status quo of course! However, I am interested to unpack and discuss we can make progress as a community in the other areas as well.

Cheers,
Stephen. 

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

 

On 22/03/2021 12:00 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Hi Aprill 

 

ISKO Singapore is holding a virtual panel with CILIP on the KM Chartership on 18 June (the panel will include a couple of chartership candidates, one of whom is a consultant). You (and other list members) are welcome to register and participate in  this event - there is no charge. Note the timing is 4pm Singapore time.

 

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

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

<image001.jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 6:17 AM, Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:

 

As above... 
Are any consultants here thinking about the CILIP chartership? Wondering what the value of joining will be when I can't get an employer to cover the cost.


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

 

 


Re: CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM chartership and what about consultants? #certification #consulting

Robert L. Bogue
 

Good catch.  The idea was to highlight a large group interaction that everyone would believe was typical.  Technically, it shouldn’t be World Café … but if there was a good representative large group interaction…  It’s sort of like facial tissue and Kleenex.    I do, however, think one should be picked to make things as concrete as possible.

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 7:05 PM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Hi Robert,

I really like what you're saying but I was a bit surprised to see you singling out World Cafés. Can you expand a bit on why you see this as essential?

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 23/03/2021 12:49 am, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

Stephen –

 

I don’t think you’re off track but I’d like to share a trick that was shared with me – that may give you a more productive track.

 

About 2010 I wrote a course for Microsoft “Implementing ECM on SharePoint.”  It was for their partners and enterprise customers.  We got very caught up in the best way to do things for the largest organizations and the challenges that they might encounter.  My client and friend suggested that I consider 80%-80% as a rule.  What is about 80% of what someone would need to know for the deployments that were in the implementation of the bottom 80% of the market.  Later in the project we used the idea that you’ve got an expert running the project but you just need to know enough to communicate with them intelligently.  What would you need to know?

 

For me, I think in the core skills category, there’s at least an introduction to motivation.  I think there’s a bit of systems thinking.  There’s a bit of community building.

 

I could probably keep going and identify some broad areas… and underneath that define what key skills, behaviors, or techniques that I think everyone should know about, and then I’d decide what level they’d have to know.  For instance, I think everyone should understand World Café – not because they have to run it but because they should understand how and why it works.  I’d put this as a requisite skill for any KM practitioner at any level.

 

I think foundations on trust are essential.  I’d make the key skill identification of behaviors that erode trust.  They don’t have to solve them… just see them and be able to research/learn more or get a lead involved to help fix it.

 

I could go on… I think that you’re trying to solve the right problem but I’m not sure the approach to decomposition will lead to the results you desire.  I think that you’ll be better off to think about the kind of person that you’d like to mentor and what you want them to know at or near the beginning of their career.  (This is the same as above just reframed.)

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 10:31 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Amazing stuff Robert -- thanks!

You've put your finger on one of the key problems with KM certification: What does the role of an associate / beginner KM professional look like? Does such a thing exist?

It would have to incorporate some of the skills that will develop into a more expert role down the line, otherwise there's no meaningful connection or progression between the two. But it can't be so complex in terms of experience or otherwise, as you say, practitioners will be less likely to think they need it (especially if they already have a postgraduate qualification) and the market demand to possess the formal certification is likely to remain low.

So we need both a starting point and a pathway. There are three basic ways I can think of to organise a profession:

  1. Tiered roles primarily distinguished by experience and competence, eg Project Coordinator (Project+) -> Project Manager (PMP) -> Program Manager
  2. Base entry role leading to multiple specialisations, eg Service Desk Operator -> System Administrator -> ICT Manager / Solutions Architect / Database Administrator / etc
  3. Multiple entry roles, each with different career advancement paths, eg Nurse -> Nurse Practitioner / Remote Medicine vs Doctor -> GP / Surgeon / ENT etc

I believe there has previously been an assumption (including by me) that any "basic" KM role would be oriented linearly towards more expert KM opportunities.

However, when I attempted at documenting a typology of KM roles a while back, I divided them without a great deal of thought into senior and operational roles. Now I am wondering whether it would be better to think of them as two separate career streams:

  1. Strategic roles
    1. Knowledge Program Manager
    2. Knowledge Manager
    3. Knowledge Architect
  1. Operational roles
    1. Knowledge Process Manager
    2. Knowledge Analyst
    3. Knowledge Process Officer

It seems unlikely that a deep understanding of ISO30401 would greatly benefit the operational type of role. On the other hand I believe it would be possible to outline a pragmatic curriculum to improve effectiveness, teach fundamentals (ie what a complex system is and why it matters) and a common set of terminology and methods recommended for adoption. It would fit the bill for meaningful competence training without a great deal of prior experience and match the described market need for most base to mid level KM roles.

On the other hand, a strategic role benefits more from study in complex systems, individual and group psychology, and information sciences along with training in key KM methods for diagnosing problems and then designing, implementing and managing new and effective KM interventions (often implemented by the operational roles). These are meaty subjects that are probably best suited to tertiary study, along with significant hands-on experience (or a simulation of the real thing). It seems unlikely that we'll ever achieve meaningful certification for these types of roles -- perhaps a "gold standard" style PMP if we're lucky and with a significant increase in market demand. (There will also likely be far fewer full-time roles in this space with a tendency towards consultations.)

Could be completely on the wrong track of course. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 22/03/2021 10:32 pm, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

Sorry I’m late to the party but allow me to offer a few thoughts based on my experience in a couple of different arenas.

 

First, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that certification is an indication that someone has met the standard.  The problem, as Patrick and Murray point to, is that we don’t have a standard.

 

Having been involved in the certification process for a vendor and an industry association, I can tell you setting a standard isn’t as easy as it seems and it can easily be drawn into a bad place by the subject matter experts deciding that their area of specialty is the most important.   (It can equally be pulled off by people who are not practical.  I’ll get to that in a moment.)  When you’re building a fundamentals, or baseline, certification it’s easy enough to select the key things that everyone should know.  The fundamental models (correct or not) that people should be aware of since they’re likely to encounter them.  It becomes difficult, as Patrick points to when you get to the point of the knowledge being specialized.

 

The answer then is – and should be – to develop the associate/beginner certification which includes the things that everyone should know.  Connecting this to academia – it’s all the stuff that goes in the 101 course for other disciplines.  The advanced stuff doesn’t psychometrically validate well and setting a “cut score” becomes challenging.  Consider an exam and certification with four major areas.  Let’s say that someone demonstrates good competency in three of the four areas but has no knowledge whatsoever in the fourth.  You end up with 85/85/85/20 resulting in a 68.75%.  Should that be passing?  (By the way, I assume 20% because I’m assuming multiple choice 5 answer questions and pure guesses since they psychometrically validate well.)  Cut scores are generally set around 70%.  However, the more challenging problem is that the certification meets a standard.  One should reasonably expect that someone certified should know all four content areas.  (This was precisely a question I had to help answer on an exam/certification that failed in the market.)

 

The second truth to advanced certifications is that they’re not profitable.  You don’t drive enough volume to justify your development costs.  Years ago the most lucrative certification was A+ for CompTIA because of the volume.  It served a real place in the market.  The “big box” retailers needed a way to certify their computer technicians.  It drove a ton of volume.   So while subject matter experts want to work on advanced certifications, it’s the wrong place to go if you want the market to move.  My work with the Server+ certification is public knowledge so I can say that while we did the right things for skills match there wasn’t a market demand because no one used it as a screening criteria for candidates.

 

I can tell you if you include too many people’s personal beliefs into what’s important it will sink the validity of the certification.  The market won’t care and they won’t interpret it as valid.  The reason that A+ worked is because it was directly relevant to the job skills necessary to be successful.  Doing that with a more heuristic role is exponentially more difficult.

 

Let me share my experience with my work on change management.  Change management suffers the same fate as KM relative to certification.  In their case ACMP is pushing their CCMP certification which is based on their “Standard.” (literally that’s what it’s called.)  The problem is the standard is garbage.  It’s a project management approach to change management that just doesn’t work but they’re still off certifying people because it’s something.  The Change Management Institute (CMI) is certifying folks but they’ve got a sole-source training contract with a vendor and a body of knowledge that got pulled into a book and really unwound.  It turned into a mishmash of everything that someone might want to know with no focus.  Prosci is the big commercial player and they’re certifying people on their model.  The problem is that it doesn’t make people broadly more able to manage change.  I put together what I think are fundamentals to the profession but then again I’m building training.  I don’t care about certifying people because I want them to have the skills and I don’t think I could set the standard if I want to.  Neither of the industry associations are doing an effective job at creating an entry level certification that indicates basic competence.

 

(Sidebar: Consider the fact that there’s very little difference between the skills necessary for change management and knowledge management.  The core skills overlap is very large.)

 

Let me shift to project management where PMI has their PMP.  Everyone thinks about this as the “gold standard.”  It requires experience.  It’s relatively difficult.  The problem is that it’s too hard for the project coordinators that a project or program manager needs to manage projects.  The result, is that project coordinators (lower level staff) get certified with CompTIA’s Project+.  It’s a step towards project management’s gold standard PMP certification but indicates baseline skills and lexicon that a PMP certified project manager should expect.  As a result, it’s successful.  So while PMI is successful with their PMP program, it’s a bit in spite of themselves.  Others in the market filled the gap.

 

However, PMI raises an interesting point… Do you have to have experience to get the certification?  My answer is an emphatic no.  However, as a certification provider you want the answer to be yes.  Because you want to demonstrate that your certification is higher value.  However, I’ve met people with the same first year experience twenty times – and people that have crammed 20 years of experience into less than a year.  So in my mind, experience means nothing.  However, it guards the certification provider against the claim that people don’t know the things that the certification is supposed to ensure.  (Paper MCSEs was common for the Windows NT 4 days because people couldn’t do the work.)  My answer to this is improve the relevance of your questions to the real world skills that people are being asked to demonstrate.

 

Oh, and ACMP requires that you demonstrate 21 hours of training from one of their qualified training providers – or you come up with some way of them agreeing that you’ve done 21 hours of training.  As most of you here know, I’ve read and reviewed a book every single week for several years.  I’ve got 270 book reviews on the confident change management site.  However, it’s unclear if they’d count this as “training.”  As a point of fact, I applied to become one of their qualified education providers and my application was denied.  The point of this – requiring training to get a certification is not a good idea for a certification.  At the same time, I recognize and support the reason why training providers have to do this.  The market demands it of them.  In the absence of a good certification, any certification will do.

 

In short, we need an entry level certification for KM that works from the mode of the things that everyone needs to know, that’s practical to the real work we all do (and the others on our team do).

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Murray Jennex via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:08 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

I would argue that it is not the lack of a body of knowledge that makes certification difficult, it is the lack of standard outcomes and how to achieve them that makes certification impossible as there is not a measuring stick to measure against, hence you can't certify anyone to a base level of performance......murray jennex 



-----Original Message-----
From: bill@... <bill@...>
To: main@sikm.groups.io <main@sikm.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 12:42 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

All great points Patrick!

 

Thank you 

 

Bill

Bill Kaplan

Founder

Working Knowledge CSP

 

 





On Mar 21, 2021, at 23:13, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

 Thanks Bill. I especially like the way you advocate separation between certification and training. However while the Body of Knowledge (BOK) approach does appear at first sight to hold value, some providers have merged their training content with “BOK” claims, thus blurring that separation. We still lack independent means of verifying a body of knowledge around KM, and I think we are still a very long way off from having anything that is sufficiently diverse and deep to cover the diversity of work contexts we deal with.

 

What I like about the CILIP offering is that it is practical. It advances the experience-based evaluation of KM practices, using portfolio building, mentors and the mechanism of peer review. That is a framework we have sadly lacked in the past.

 

There is no lack of training in KM, whether “certification”-oriented or otherwise and my instinct would be that (aside from foundational education programmes in KM), there may be more value in seeking out specialised training in deep niches for the specialised aspects of KM we may be dealing with at any given time. 

 

KM practices and needs (as you point out) are so diverse that I am not sure how valuable a generalised (context-free) certification course can be, aside from building some foundational knowledge, which is useful for beginners but rapidly loses value when we get into more specialised areas of work. That is precisely the same problem that a BOK approach runs into.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone: 

+65 98528511

web: 

www.straitsknowledge.com
resources: 

www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping: 

www.aithinsoftware.com



<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 1:53 PM, bill@... wrote:

 

Stephen and Patrick--

 

This subject resurfaces regularly.  I can share two Linked In articles I posted on certification in KM and why it cannot yet exist.  The articles share many of your points.

 

 

Training organizations offer “certification” but in reality the “certification” is a certificate demonstrating completion of offered training. While there may be personal value in taking the training it is not certification around a body of knowledge.

 

 

best

 

Bill

 

 

<image002.png>

 

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

 

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 21:29
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Hi Patrick,

I'm very much looking forward to this session. BTW, I ended up re-reading a 2006 article of yours and think it is definitely worth considering to what extent CILIP is or is not a "certification" program, noting the the challenges and goals you outlined so nicely back then.

I have taken the liberty of lightly revising what you wrote to reflect my assessment of our present situation as per the below:

What would you expect to see in a professional KM certification programme?

A "strong" KM certification programme would need diverse instructional and testing in:

  1. Knowledge: taught input and verbal testing (ie describe the difference between a knowledge strategy and a knowledge management strategy)
  2. Skills: demonstration, supervised practice and outcomes based testing (ie put together a project plan for a knowledge audit; conduct an after action review session for a project team)
  3. Attitudes and Values: cannot be taught or tested, can only be modelled and observed in an environment of continuing professional interaction and peer review
  4. Aptitudes: cannot be taught, can only be uncovered and fostered over time, most likely in a mentoring/coaching kind of partnership

And therefore a good KM certification programme would need to have:

  1. taught and examined knowledge input
  2. guided and assessed practice
  3. continuing professional interaction and peer review over time
  4. mentoring and coaching structures

Professional societies or networks are clearly the best candidates for providing this combination of features: as good as universities are, few of them are well placed to develop and deliver the practice based skills and professional interaction areas. To avoid the inevitable distortions of commercial gain, certification and training courses in KM should be not-for-profit and non-commercial in nature.

A problem is that -- with the possible exception of the ISO 30401 KMS standard -- there is still no commonly accepted set of concepts, theories and practices that embody KM. As such we must acknowledge that from the "knowledge" point of view (as distinct from skills, values and aptitudes), any certification is likely to only represent one perspective among many.

Based on what I know of the CILIP chartership, my assessment is that the focus is primarily on demonstrated skills. There is definitely some intent to test demonstrated attitudes and values as well, but it appears to be neither designed or intended to address the knowledge or aptitude components of a hypothetical "certification".

Having this option still represents a significant leap forward from the status quo of course! However, I am interested to unpack and discuss we can make progress as a community in the other areas as well.

Cheers,
Stephen. 

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

 

On 22/03/2021 12:00 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Hi Aprill 

 

ISKO Singapore is holding a virtual panel with CILIP on the KM Chartership on 18 June (the panel will include a couple of chartership candidates, one of whom is a consultant). You (and other list members) are welcome to register and participate in  this event - there is no charge. Note the timing is 4pm Singapore time.

 

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

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

<image001.jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 6:17 AM, Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:

 

As above... 
Are any consultants here thinking about the CILIP chartership? Wondering what the value of joining will be when I can't get an employer to cover the cost.


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

 

 


Re: Tools disrupting KM #search #tools #state-of-KM

Nirmala Palaniappan
 

This is interesting, Eudald. Thanks!

I have been looking at how machine learning programmes can answer questions (as opposed to searching for keywords or phrases) and think that may be another substitute for conventional search. 

For example: An employee might log into the intranet and ask “Whom should I contact for information on <name of topic>” and the ML program might return a bunch of relevant answers based on the content in the Intranet and also lead to the documents that contain the rest of the information.

Regards
Nirmala 

On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 2:06 PM, Eudald Camprubi <eudald@...> wrote:

Hi, 

My name is Eudald Camprubí, CEO at Flaps, we are a startup from Barcelona building an insight engine to help companies overcome information chaos. 
I've decided to write this post because we are looking for opinions about the future of KM, specially when it comes to software. 

I have some experience on enterprise search, but I really feel indexing all company's data is not useful, because ends up indexing a lot of non-relevant information and this generates a lot of "noise", so I truly believe that the trend will be just to index what is considered the key information of a company. What do you think about it? 
Do you think that the natural evolution of what we today understand as "enterprise search" will be "insight engines"? 

Thanks so much! 

PD: Just to let you know, this is the approach we are following to offer a much more "intelligent" analysis form documentes and videos: https://www.loom.com/share/326f3a57a1b243388e53753522553e37


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


Re: Network graphs? #SNA-ONA-VNA

 

Hi Ninez,


I chose an open source software developed by INRIA and LaBRI called “Tulip”. Tulip is a data visualization tool. It models the relationships between the nodes and analyzes the connections between them. Tulip contains a library of algorithms that can be applied to the data set and model them into graphs. The interactions between the nodes can be analyzed and the data associated to them can be filtered or grouped. The nodes can also be clustered into macro nodes if they share the same data properties. 


You may download Tulip from http://tulip.labri.fr/TulipDrupal/

Thank you
Rachad 




Tools disrupting KM #search #tools #state-of-KM

Eudald Camprubi
 
Edited

Hi, 

My name is Eudald Camprubí, CEO at Flaps, we are a startup from Barcelona building an insight engine to help companies overcome information chaos. 
I've decided to write this post because we are looking for opinions about the future of KM, specially when it comes to software. 

I have some experience on enterprise search, but I really feel indexing all company's data is not useful, because ends up indexing a lot of non-relevant information and this generates a lot of "noise", so I truly believe that the trend will be just to index what is considered the key information of a company. What do you think about it? 
Do you think that the natural evolution of what we today understand as "enterprise search" will be "insight engines"? 

Thanks so much! 

PS: Just to let you know, this is the approach we are following to offer a much more "intelligent" analysis from documents and videos: https://www.loom.com/share/326f3a57a1b243388e53753522553e37



Re: CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM chartership and what about consultants? #certification #consulting

Murray Jennex
 

I agree with most of what you say and in my last post I mentioned that the PE has the EIT as its entry level cert.  PMI also has an entry level cert as the PMP is not meant to be that, it is the CAPM (Certified Associate Project Manager) and is based on understanding the PMI BOK.  I teach the CAPM in my undergraduate PM courses and encourage undergrads to take the CAPM exam.  I do believe all final certifications require experience and be performance based.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Bogue <rbogue@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 5:32 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

Sorry I’m late to the party but allow me to offer a few thoughts based on my experience in a couple of different arenas.
 
First, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that certification is an indication that someone has met the standard.  The problem, as Patrick and Murray point to, is that we don’t have a standard.
 
Having been involved in the certification process for a vendor and an industry association, I can tell you setting a standard isn’t as easy as it seems and it can easily be drawn into a bad place by the subject matter experts deciding that their area of specialty is the most important.   (It can equally be pulled off by people who are not practical.  I’ll get to that in a moment.)  When you’re building a fundamentals, or baseline, certification it’s easy enough to select the key things that everyone should know.  The fundamental models (correct or not) that people should be aware of since they’re likely to encounter them.  It becomes difficult, as Patrick points to when you get to the point of the knowledge being specialized.
 
The answer then is – and should be – to develop the associate/beginner certification which includes the things that everyone should know.  Connecting this to academia – it’s all the stuff that goes in the 101 course for other disciplines.  The advanced stuff doesn’t psychometrically validate well and setting a “cut score” becomes challenging.  Consider an exam and certification with four major areas.  Let’s say that someone demonstrates good competency in three of the four areas but has no knowledge whatsoever in the fourth.  You end up with 85/85/85/20 resulting in a 68.75%.  Should that be passing?  (By the way, I assume 20% because I’m assuming multiple choice 5 answer questions and pure guesses since they psychometrically validate well.)  Cut scores are generally set around 70%.  However, the more challenging problem is that the certification meets a standard.  One should reasonably expect that someone certified should know all four content areas.  (This was precisely a question I had to help answer on an exam/certification that failed in the market.)
 
The second truth to advanced certifications is that they’re not profitable.  You don’t drive enough volume to justify your development costs.  Years ago the most lucrative certification was A+ for CompTIA because of the volume.  It served a real place in the market.  The “big box” retailers needed a way to certify their computer technicians.  It drove a ton of volume.   So while subject matter experts want to work on advanced certifications, it’s the wrong place to go if you want the market to move.  My work with the Server+ certification is public knowledge so I can say that while we did the right things for skills match there wasn’t a market demand because no one used it as a screening criteria for candidates.
 
I can tell you if you include too many people’s personal beliefs into what’s important it will sink the validity of the certification.  The market won’t care and they won’t interpret it as valid.  The reason that A+ worked is because it was directly relevant to the job skills necessary to be successful.  Doing that with a more heuristic role is exponentially more difficult.
 
Let me share my experience with my work on change management.  Change management suffers the same fate as KM relative to certification.  In their case ACMP is pushing their CCMP certification which is based on their “Standard.” (literally that’s what it’s called.)  The problem is the standard is garbage.  It’s a project management approach to change management that just doesn’t work but they’re still off certifying people because it’s something.  The Change Management Institute (CMI) is certifying folks but they’ve got a sole-source training contract with a vendor and a body of knowledge that got pulled into a book and really unwound.  It turned into a mishmash of everything that someone might want to know with no focus.  Prosci is the big commercial player and they’re certifying people on their model.  The problem is that it doesn’t make people broadly more able to manage change.  I put together what I think are fundamentals to the profession but then again I’m building training.  I don’t care about certifying people because I want them to have the skills and I don’t think I could set the standard if I want to.  Neither of the industry associations are doing an effective job at creating an entry level certification that indicates basic competence.
 
(Sidebar: Consider the fact that there’s very little difference between the skills necessary for change management and knowledge management.  The core skills overlap is very large.)
 
Let me shift to project management where PMI has their PMP.  Everyone thinks about this as the “gold standard.”  It requires experience.  It’s relatively difficult.  The problem is that it’s too hard for the project coordinators that a project or program manager needs to manage projects.  The result, is that project coordinators (lower level staff) get certified with CompTIA’s Project+.  It’s a step towards project management’s gold standard PMP certification but indicates baseline skills and lexicon that a PMP certified project manager should expect.  As a result, it’s successful.  So while PMI is successful with their PMP program, it’s a bit in spite of themselves.  Others in the market filled the gap.
 
However, PMI raises an interesting point… Do you have to have experience to get the certification?  My answer is an emphatic no.  However, as a certification provider you want the answer to be yes.  Because you want to demonstrate that your certification is higher value.  However, I’ve met people with the same first year experience twenty times – and people that have crammed 20 years of experience into less than a year.  So in my mind, experience means nothing.  However, it guards the certification provider against the claim that people don’t know the things that the certification is supposed to ensure.  (Paper MCSEs was common for the Windows NT 4 days because people couldn’t do the work.)  My answer to this is improve the relevance of your questions to the real world skills that people are being asked to demonstrate.
 
Oh, and ACMP requires that you demonstrate 21 hours of training from one of their qualified training providers – or you come up with some way of them agreeing that you’ve done 21 hours of training.  As most of you here know, I’ve read and reviewed a book every single week for several years.  I’ve got 270 book reviews on the confident change management site.  However, it’s unclear if they’d count this as “training.”  As a point of fact, I applied to become one of their qualified education providers and my application was denied.  The point of this – requiring training to get a certification is not a good idea for a certification.  At the same time, I recognize and support the reason why training providers have to do this.  The market demands it of them.  In the absence of a good certification, any certification will do.
 
In short, we need an entry level certification for KM that works from the mode of the things that everyone needs to know, that’s practical to the real work we all do (and the others on our team do).
 
Rob
 
-------------------
Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310  M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog
Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com
Are you burned out?  https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it (for free)
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Murray Jennex via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:08 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?
 
I would argue that it is not the lack of a body of knowledge that makes certification difficult, it is the lack of standard outcomes and how to achieve them that makes certification impossible as there is not a measuring stick to measure against, hence you can't certify anyone to a base level of performance......murray jennex 

-----Original Message-----
From: bill@... <bill@...>
To: main@sikm.groups.io <main@sikm.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 12:42 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?
All great points Patrick!
 
Thank you 
 
Bill
Bill Kaplan
Founder
Working Knowledge CSP
 
 


On Mar 21, 2021, at 23:13, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:
 Thanks Bill. I especially like the way you advocate separation between certification and training. However while the Body of Knowledge (BOK) approach does appear at first sight to hold value, some providers have merged their training content with “BOK” claims, thus blurring that separation. We still lack independent means of verifying a body of knowledge around KM, and I think we are still a very long way off from having anything that is sufficiently diverse and deep to cover the diversity of work contexts we deal with.
 
What I like about the CILIP offering is that it is practical. It advances the experience-based evaluation of KM practices, using portfolio building, mentors and the mechanism of peer review. That is a framework we have sadly lacked in the past.
 
There is no lack of training in KM, whether “certification”-oriented or otherwise and my instinct would be that (aside from foundational education programmes in KM), there may be more value in seeking out specialised training in deep niches for the specialised aspects of KM we may be dealing with at any given time. 
 
KM practices and needs (as you point out) are so diverse that I am not sure how valuable a generalised (context-free) certification course can be, aside from building some foundational knowledge, which is useful for beginners but rapidly loses value when we get into more specialised areas of work. That is precisely the same problem that a BOK approach runs into.
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone: 
+65 98528511

web: 
www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping: 
<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>
 
On 22 Mar 2021, at 1:53 PM, bill@... wrote:
 
Stephen and Patrick--
 
This subject resurfaces regularly.  I can share two Linked In articles I posted on certification in KM and why it cannot yet exist.  The articles share many of your points.
 
 
Training organizations offer “certification” but in reality the “certification” is a certificate demonstrating completion of offered training. While there may be personal value in taking the training it is not certification around a body of knowledge.
 
 
best
 
Bill
 
 
<image002.png>
 
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com
 
 
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 21:29
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?
 
Hi Patrick,
I'm very much looking forward to this session. BTW, I ended up re-reading a 2006 article of yours and think it is definitely worth considering to what extent CILIP is or is not a "certification" program, noting the the challenges and goals you outlined so nicely back then.
I have taken the liberty of lightly revising what you wrote to reflect my assessment of our present situation as per the below:
What would you expect to see in a professional KM certification programme?
A "strong" KM certification programme would need diverse instructional and testing in:
  • Knowledge: taught input and verbal testing (ie describe the difference between a knowledge strategy and a knowledge management strategy)
  • Skills: demonstration, supervised practice and outcomes based testing (ie put together a project plan for a knowledge audit; conduct an after action review session for a project team)
  • Attitudes and Values: cannot be taught or tested, can only be modelled and observed in an environment of continuing professional interaction and peer review
  • Aptitudes: cannot be taught, can only be uncovered and fostered over time, most likely in a mentoring/coaching kind of partnership
And therefore a good KM certification programme would need to have:
  • taught and examined knowledge input
  • guided and assessed practice
  • continuing professional interaction and peer review over time
  • mentoring and coaching structures
Professional societies or networks are clearly the best candidates for providing this combination of features: as good as universities are, few of them are well placed to develop and deliver the practice based skills and professional interaction areas. To avoid the inevitable distortions of commercial gain, certification and training courses in KM should be not-for-profit and non-commercial in nature.
A problem is that -- with the possible exception of the ISO 30401 KMS standard -- there is still no commonly accepted set of concepts, theories and practices that embody KM. As such we must acknowledge that from the "knowledge" point of view (as distinct from skills, values and aptitudes), any certification is likely to only represent one perspective among many.
Based on what I know of the CILIP chartership, my assessment is that the focus is primarily on demonstrated skills. There is definitely some intent to test demonstrated attitudes and values as well, but it appears to be neither designed or intended to address the knowledge or aptitude components of a hypothetical "certification".
Having this option still represents a significant leap forward from the status quo of course! However, I am interested to unpack and discuss we can make progress as a community in the other areas as well.
Cheers,
Stephen. 
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
 
On 22/03/2021 12:00 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Aprill 
 
ISKO Singapore is holding a virtual panel with CILIP on the KM Chartership on 18 June (the panel will include a couple of chartership candidates, one of whom is a consultant). You (and other list members) are welcome to register and participate in  this event - there is no charge. Note the timing is 4pm Singapore time.
 
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

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

<image001.jpg>
 
On 22 Mar 2021, at 6:17 AM, Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:
 
As above... 
Are any consultants here thinking about the CILIP chartership? Wondering what the value of joining will be when I can't get an employer to cover the cost.


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


Re: CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM chartership and what about consultants? #certification #consulting

Murray Jennex
 

we are in agreement Patrick, I tend to try to use few words and I agreed with the discussion on the body of knowledge but just thought the point was being missed that you don't certify anyone to how well they know a bok, you certify to how well you apply it and that is what my comment on having no standard outcomes with standard approaches for achieving them.  I've got 3 certifications and 1 professional license and all tested on applying the bok, not on just knowing the bok (although for my engineering license there is a precursor cert called eit or engineer in training which focuses on making sure the bok is known by the test taker).  Since certifications are usually used as a basis for a job or for conveying credibility to a client, certifying to a performance standard rather than the bok is the norm.  Although as stated you can't do the performance standard if you don't know the bok.  Also note that all the certifications and license that I possess required an experience component also, again to show that you can do the job without being supervised, that you can in fact lead the job.  One of my other certs (not mentioned above) is that I am a level 3 nuclear containment test supervisor.  There are only a handful (literally 5 or 6) of use left alive from the heyday of nuclear power and a level 3 cert is required to supervise an actual test so we are in demand.  This cert of course required knowing the bok but also being able to apply it and to have a history of applying it.  I'm still on the nuclear standards committee for this activity,  So I guess I'm saying that all the certs I have or have had (there are more than discussed here) were all based on applying a bok and not on knowing the bok and all had an experience component.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 2:31 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

Hi Murray

I partly agree and partly disagree with you. 

I absolutely agree on the need to link “knowledge” to outcomes. “BOK" can be and often is used as a context-free term, and certifying against a BOK and not against outcomes is as nonsensical as it is common.

I agree with you to the extent that “Body of Knowledge” can be taken just to mean a body of documented knowledge relating to a field that can be used as a reference resource. I think this is sometimes used as a distraction from the really hard work of demonstrating practical improvements (we compile some content and call it a BOK and teach it in a course and hey presto magic competencies can be inferred).

I reserve my agreement when it comes to a deeper meaning for Body of Knowledge - which in the certification context, should in principle comprise a body of independently validated and widely applicable knowledge, that:
  • is applicable across multiple organisational and cultural contexts, 
  • is clearly documented and organised and available for use, and 
  • has the quality of good evidence - i.e. the practices being documented are evidenced in practice and are known to produce reliable outcomes within defined boundaries. 

I do think this connotation for BOK would be entirely consistent with, and supportive of, an outcomes focused approach. 

Moreover, a purely outcomes-focused approach without any attention to systematic knowledge-building, learning and improvement, and to the quality of evidence in support of the approaches being used, is the equivalent of throwing whatever is to hand in our personal repertoires and experience at any problem we meet and seeing what sticks. 

We’ve been doing that for the past 25 years or more, and it has been a slow, hard and contentious crawl out of that slime (trying to make sense of all the things that “stuck” without knowing about all the things that didn’t) and towards some semblance of consistency and common ground in our community.

So I am both sceptical of the rush to approval of supposed “BOKs” in KM, but I am also convinced of the need for systematic knowledge building and sharing in our professional community. We are still a long way off from that goal. In the meantime, certifying against outcomes does seem like a practical interim approach.

I have one other small niggle, though. I am not sure that it is possible to measure against achievement of “standard” outcomes in all contexts, particularly in relation to very complex and unstructured environments. I would be happier if we talked about “improved” outcomes against baselines.

So I think agree with you on your main point but would express things differently (if less elegantly) on the detail.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 22 Mar 2021, at 4:08 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:

I would argue that it is not the lack of a body of knowledge that makes certification difficult, it is the lack of standard outcomes and how to achieve them that makes certification impossible as there is not a measuring stick to measure against, hence you can't certify anyone to a base level of performance......murray jennex 


-----Original Message-----
From: bill@... <bill@...>
To: main@sikm.groups.io <main@sikm.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 12:42 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

All great points Patrick!

Thank you 

Bill

Bill Kaplan
Founder
Working Knowledge CSP



On Mar 21, 2021, at 23:13, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

 Thanks Bill. I especially like the way you advocate separation between certification and training. However while the Body of Knowledge (BOK) approach does appear at first sight to hold value, some providers have merged their training content with “BOK” claims, thus blurring that separation. We still lack independent means of verifying a body of knowledge around KM, and I think we are still a very long way off from having anything that is sufficiently diverse and deep to cover the diversity of work contexts we deal with.

What I like about the CILIP offering is that it is practical. It advances the experience-based evaluation of KM practices, using portfolio building, mentors and the mechanism of peer review. That is a framework we have sadly lacked in the past.

There is no lack of training in KM, whether “certification”-oriented or otherwise and my instinct would be that (aside from foundational education programmes in KM), there may be more value in seeking out specialised training in deep niches for the specialised aspects of KM we may be dealing with at any given time. 

KM practices and needs (as you point out) are so diverse that I am not sure how valuable a generalised (context-free) certification course can be, aside from building some foundational knowledge, which is useful for beginners but rapidly loses value when we get into more specialised areas of work. That is precisely the same problem that a BOK approach runs into.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 22 Mar 2021, at 1:53 PM, bill@... wrote:

Stephen and Patrick--
 
This subject resurfaces regularly.  I can share two Linked In articles I posted on certification in KM and why it cannot yet exist.  The articles share many of your points.
 
 
Training organizations offer “certification” but in reality the “certification” is a certificate demonstrating completion of offered training. While there may be personal value in taking the training it is not certification around a body of knowledge.
 
 
best
 
Bill
 
 
<image002.png>
 
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com
 
 
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 21:29
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?
 
Hi Patrick,
I'm very much looking forward to this session. BTW, I ended up re-reading a 2006 article of yours and think it is definitely worth considering to what extent CILIP is or is not a "certification" program, noting the the challenges and goals you outlined so nicely back then.
I have taken the liberty of lightly revising what you wrote to reflect my assessment of our present situation as per the below:
What would you expect to see in a professional KM certification programme?
A "strong" KM certification programme would need diverse instructional and testing in:
  • Knowledge: taught input and verbal testing (ie describe the difference between a knowledge strategy and a knowledge management strategy)
  • Skills: demonstration, supervised practice and outcomes based testing (ie put together a project plan for a knowledge audit; conduct an after action review session for a project team)
  • Attitudes and Values: cannot be taught or tested, can only be modelled and observed in an environment of continuing professional interaction and peer review
  • Aptitudes: cannot be taught, can only be uncovered and fostered over time, most likely in a mentoring/coaching kind of partnership
And therefore a good KM certification programme would need to have:
  • taught and examined knowledge input
  • guided and assessed practice
  • continuing professional interaction and peer review over time
  • mentoring and coaching structures
Professional societies or networks are clearly the best candidates for providing this combination of features: as good as universities are, few of them are well placed to develop and deliver the practice based skills and professional interaction areas. To avoid the inevitable distortions of commercial gain, certification and training courses in KM should be not-for-profit and non-commercial in nature.
A problem is that -- with the possible exception of the ISO 30401 KMS standard -- there is still no commonly accepted set of concepts, theories and practices that embody KM. As such we must acknowledge that from the "knowledge" point of view (as distinct from skills, values and aptitudes), any certification is likely to only represent one perspective among many.
Based on what I know of the CILIP chartership, my assessment is that the focus is primarily on demonstrated skills. There is definitely some intent to test demonstrated attitudes and values as well, but it appears to be neither designed or intended to address the knowledge or aptitude components of a hypothetical "certification".
Having this option still represents a significant leap forward from the status quo of course! However, I am interested to unpack and discuss we can make progress as a community in the other areas as well.
Cheers,
Stephen. 
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
 
On 22/03/2021 12:00 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Aprill 
 
ISKO Singapore is holding a virtual panel with CILIP on the KM Chartership on 18 June (the panel will include a couple of chartership candidates, one of whom is a consultant). You (and other list members) are welcome to register and participate in  this event - there is no charge. Note the timing is 4pm Singapore time.
 
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

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

<image001.jpg>
 
On 22 Mar 2021, at 6:17 AM, Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:
 
As above... 
Are any consultants here thinking about the CILIP chartership? Wondering what the value of joining will be when I can't get an employer to cover the cost.


-- 

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



Re: CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM chartership and what about consultants? #certification #consulting

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Robert,

I really like what you're saying but I was a bit surprised to see you singling out World Cafés. Can you expand a bit on why you see this as essential?

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 23/03/2021 12:49 am, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

Stephen –

 

I don’t think you’re off track but I’d like to share a trick that was shared with me – that may give you a more productive track.

 

About 2010 I wrote a course for Microsoft “Implementing ECM on SharePoint.”  It was for their partners and enterprise customers.  We got very caught up in the best way to do things for the largest organizations and the challenges that they might encounter.  My client and friend suggested that I consider 80%-80% as a rule.  What is about 80% of what someone would need to know for the deployments that were in the implementation of the bottom 80% of the market.  Later in the project we used the idea that you’ve got an expert running the project but you just need to know enough to communicate with them intelligently.  What would you need to know?

 

For me, I think in the core skills category, there’s at least an introduction to motivation.  I think there’s a bit of systems thinking.  There’s a bit of community building.

 

I could probably keep going and identify some broad areas… and underneath that define what key skills, behaviors, or techniques that I think everyone should know about, and then I’d decide what level they’d have to know.  For instance, I think everyone should understand World Café – not because they have to run it but because they should understand how and why it works.  I’d put this as a requisite skill for any KM practitioner at any level.

 

I think foundations on trust are essential.  I’d make the key skill identification of behaviors that erode trust.  They don’t have to solve them… just see them and be able to research/learn more or get a lead involved to help fix it.

 

I could go on… I think that you’re trying to solve the right problem but I’m not sure the approach to decomposition will lead to the results you desire.  I think that you’ll be better off to think about the kind of person that you’d like to mentor and what you want them to know at or near the beginning of their career.  (This is the same as above just reframed.)

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 10:31 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Amazing stuff Robert -- thanks!

You've put your finger on one of the key problems with KM certification: What does the role of an associate / beginner KM professional look like? Does such a thing exist?

It would have to incorporate some of the skills that will develop into a more expert role down the line, otherwise there's no meaningful connection or progression between the two. But it can't be so complex in terms of experience or otherwise, as you say, practitioners will be less likely to think they need it (especially if they already have a postgraduate qualification) and the market demand to possess the formal certification is likely to remain low.

So we need both a starting point and a pathway. There are three basic ways I can think of to organise a profession:

  • Tiered roles primarily distinguished by experience and competence, eg Project Coordinator (Project+) -> Project Manager (PMP) -> Program Manager
  • Base entry role leading to multiple specialisations, eg Service Desk Operator -> System Administrator -> ICT Manager / Solutions Architect / Database Administrator / etc
  • Multiple entry roles, each with different career advancement paths, eg Nurse -> Nurse Practitioner / Remote Medicine vs Doctor -> GP / Surgeon / ENT etc

I believe there has previously been an assumption (including by me) that any "basic" KM role would be oriented linearly towards more expert KM opportunities.

However, when I attempted at documenting a typology of KM roles a while back, I divided them without a great deal of thought into senior and operational roles. Now I am wondering whether it would be better to think of them as two separate career streams:

  • Strategic roles
    • Knowledge Program Manager
    • Knowledge Manager
    • Knowledge Architect
  • Operational roles
    • Knowledge Process Manager
    • Knowledge Analyst
    • Knowledge Process Officer

It seems unlikely that a deep understanding of ISO30401 would greatly benefit the operational type of role. On the other hand I believe it would be possible to outline a pragmatic curriculum to improve effectiveness, teach fundamentals (ie what a complex system is and why it matters) and a common set of terminology and methods recommended for adoption. It would fit the bill for meaningful competence training without a great deal of prior experience and match the described market need for most base to mid level KM roles.

On the other hand, a strategic role benefits more from study in complex systems, individual and group psychology, and information sciences along with training in key KM methods for diagnosing problems and then designing, implementing and managing new and effective KM interventions (often implemented by the operational roles). These are meaty subjects that are probably best suited to tertiary study, along with significant hands-on experience (or a simulation of the real thing). It seems unlikely that we'll ever achieve meaningful certification for these types of roles -- perhaps a "gold standard" style PMP if we're lucky and with a significant increase in market demand. (There will also likely be far fewer full-time roles in this space with a tendency towards consultations.)

Could be completely on the wrong track of course. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 22/03/2021 10:32 pm, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

Sorry I’m late to the party but allow me to offer a few thoughts based on my experience in a couple of different arenas.

 

First, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that certification is an indication that someone has met the standard.  The problem, as Patrick and Murray point to, is that we don’t have a standard.

 

Having been involved in the certification process for a vendor and an industry association, I can tell you setting a standard isn’t as easy as it seems and it can easily be drawn into a bad place by the subject matter experts deciding that their area of specialty is the most important.   (It can equally be pulled off by people who are not practical.  I’ll get to that in a moment.)  When you’re building a fundamentals, or baseline, certification it’s easy enough to select the key things that everyone should know.  The fundamental models (correct or not) that people should be aware of since they’re likely to encounter them.  It becomes difficult, as Patrick points to when you get to the point of the knowledge being specialized.

 

The answer then is – and should be – to develop the associate/beginner certification which includes the things that everyone should know.  Connecting this to academia – it’s all the stuff that goes in the 101 course for other disciplines.  The advanced stuff doesn’t psychometrically validate well and setting a “cut score” becomes challenging.  Consider an exam and certification with four major areas.  Let’s say that someone demonstrates good competency in three of the four areas but has no knowledge whatsoever in the fourth.  You end up with 85/85/85/20 resulting in a 68.75%.  Should that be passing?  (By the way, I assume 20% because I’m assuming multiple choice 5 answer questions and pure guesses since they psychometrically validate well.)  Cut scores are generally set around 70%.  However, the more challenging problem is that the certification meets a standard.  One should reasonably expect that someone certified should know all four content areas.  (This was precisely a question I had to help answer on an exam/certification that failed in the market.)

 

The second truth to advanced certifications is that they’re not profitable.  You don’t drive enough volume to justify your development costs.  Years ago the most lucrative certification was A+ for CompTIA because of the volume.  It served a real place in the market.  The “big box” retailers needed a way to certify their computer technicians.  It drove a ton of volume.   So while subject matter experts want to work on advanced certifications, it’s the wrong place to go if you want the market to move.  My work with the Server+ certification is public knowledge so I can say that while we did the right things for skills match there wasn’t a market demand because no one used it as a screening criteria for candidates.

 

I can tell you if you include too many people’s personal beliefs into what’s important it will sink the validity of the certification.  The market won’t care and they won’t interpret it as valid.  The reason that A+ worked is because it was directly relevant to the job skills necessary to be successful.  Doing that with a more heuristic role is exponentially more difficult.

 

Let me share my experience with my work on change management.  Change management suffers the same fate as KM relative to certification.  In their case ACMP is pushing their CCMP certification which is based on their “Standard.” (literally that’s what it’s called.)  The problem is the standard is garbage.  It’s a project management approach to change management that just doesn’t work but they’re still off certifying people because it’s something.  The Change Management Institute (CMI) is certifying folks but they’ve got a sole-source training contract with a vendor and a body of knowledge that got pulled into a book and really unwound.  It turned into a mishmash of everything that someone might want to know with no focus.  Prosci is the big commercial player and they’re certifying people on their model.  The problem is that it doesn’t make people broadly more able to manage change.  I put together what I think are fundamentals to the profession but then again I’m building training.  I don’t care about certifying people because I want them to have the skills and I don’t think I could set the standard if I want to.  Neither of the industry associations are doing an effective job at creating an entry level certification that indicates basic competence.

 

(Sidebar: Consider the fact that there’s very little difference between the skills necessary for change management and knowledge management.  The core skills overlap is very large.)

 

Let me shift to project management where PMI has their PMP.  Everyone thinks about this as the “gold standard.”  It requires experience.  It’s relatively difficult.  The problem is that it’s too hard for the project coordinators that a project or program manager needs to manage projects.  The result, is that project coordinators (lower level staff) get certified with CompTIA’s Project+.  It’s a step towards project management’s gold standard PMP certification but indicates baseline skills and lexicon that a PMP certified project manager should expect.  As a result, it’s successful.  So while PMI is successful with their PMP program, it’s a bit in spite of themselves.  Others in the market filled the gap.

 

However, PMI raises an interesting point… Do you have to have experience to get the certification?  My answer is an emphatic no.  However, as a certification provider you want the answer to be yes.  Because you want to demonstrate that your certification is higher value.  However, I’ve met people with the same first year experience twenty times – and people that have crammed 20 years of experience into less than a year.  So in my mind, experience means nothing.  However, it guards the certification provider against the claim that people don’t know the things that the certification is supposed to ensure.  (Paper MCSEs was common for the Windows NT 4 days because people couldn’t do the work.)  My answer to this is improve the relevance of your questions to the real world skills that people are being asked to demonstrate.

 

Oh, and ACMP requires that you demonstrate 21 hours of training from one of their qualified training providers – or you come up with some way of them agreeing that you’ve done 21 hours of training.  As most of you here know, I’ve read and reviewed a book every single week for several years.  I’ve got 270 book reviews on the confident change management site.  However, it’s unclear if they’d count this as “training.”  As a point of fact, I applied to become one of their qualified education providers and my application was denied.  The point of this – requiring training to get a certification is not a good idea for a certification.  At the same time, I recognize and support the reason why training providers have to do this.  The market demands it of them.  In the absence of a good certification, any certification will do.

 

In short, we need an entry level certification for KM that works from the mode of the things that everyone needs to know, that’s practical to the real work we all do (and the others on our team do).

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Murray Jennex via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:08 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

I would argue that it is not the lack of a body of knowledge that makes certification difficult, it is the lack of standard outcomes and how to achieve them that makes certification impossible as there is not a measuring stick to measure against, hence you can't certify anyone to a base level of performance......murray jennex 


-----Original Message-----
From: bill@... <bill@...>
To: main@sikm.groups.io <main@sikm.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 12:42 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

All great points Patrick!

 

Thank you 

 

Bill

Bill Kaplan

Founder

Working Knowledge CSP

 

 




On Mar 21, 2021, at 23:13, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

 Thanks Bill. I especially like the way you advocate separation between certification and training. However while the Body of Knowledge (BOK) approach does appear at first sight to hold value, some providers have merged their training content with “BOK” claims, thus blurring that separation. We still lack independent means of verifying a body of knowledge around KM, and I think we are still a very long way off from having anything that is sufficiently diverse and deep to cover the diversity of work contexts we deal with.

 

What I like about the CILIP offering is that it is practical. It advances the experience-based evaluation of KM practices, using portfolio building, mentors and the mechanism of peer review. That is a framework we have sadly lacked in the past.

 

There is no lack of training in KM, whether “certification”-oriented or otherwise and my instinct would be that (aside from foundational education programmes in KM), there may be more value in seeking out specialised training in deep niches for the specialised aspects of KM we may be dealing with at any given time. 

 

KM practices and needs (as you point out) are so diverse that I am not sure how valuable a generalised (context-free) certification course can be, aside from building some foundational knowledge, which is useful for beginners but rapidly loses value when we get into more specialised areas of work. That is precisely the same problem that a BOK approach runs into.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone: 

+65 98528511

web: 

www.straitsknowledge.com
resources: 

www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping: 

www.aithinsoftware.com


<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 1:53 PM, bill@... wrote:

 

Stephen and Patrick--

 

This subject resurfaces regularly.  I can share two Linked In articles I posted on certification in KM and why it cannot yet exist.  The articles share many of your points.

 

 

Training organizations offer “certification” but in reality the “certification” is a certificate demonstrating completion of offered training. While there may be personal value in taking the training it is not certification around a body of knowledge.

 

 

best

 

Bill

 

 

<image002.png>

 

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

 

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 21:29
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Hi Patrick,

I'm very much looking forward to this session. BTW, I ended up re-reading a 2006 article of yours and think it is definitely worth considering to what extent CILIP is or is not a "certification" program, noting the the challenges and goals you outlined so nicely back then.

I have taken the liberty of lightly revising what you wrote to reflect my assessment of our present situation as per the below:

What would you expect to see in a professional KM certification programme?

A "strong" KM certification programme would need diverse instructional and testing in:

  1. Knowledge: taught input and verbal testing (ie describe the difference between a knowledge strategy and a knowledge management strategy)
  2. Skills: demonstration, supervised practice and outcomes based testing (ie put together a project plan for a knowledge audit; conduct an after action review session for a project team)
  3. Attitudes and Values: cannot be taught or tested, can only be modelled and observed in an environment of continuing professional interaction and peer review
  4. Aptitudes: cannot be taught, can only be uncovered and fostered over time, most likely in a mentoring/coaching kind of partnership

And therefore a good KM certification programme would need to have:

  1. taught and examined knowledge input
  2. guided and assessed practice
  3. continuing professional interaction and peer review over time
  4. mentoring and coaching structures

Professional societies or networks are clearly the best candidates for providing this combination of features: as good as universities are, few of them are well placed to develop and deliver the practice based skills and professional interaction areas. To avoid the inevitable distortions of commercial gain, certification and training courses in KM should be not-for-profit and non-commercial in nature.

A problem is that -- with the possible exception of the ISO 30401 KMS standard -- there is still no commonly accepted set of concepts, theories and practices that embody KM. As such we must acknowledge that from the "knowledge" point of view (as distinct from skills, values and aptitudes), any certification is likely to only represent one perspective among many.

Based on what I know of the CILIP chartership, my assessment is that the focus is primarily on demonstrated skills. There is definitely some intent to test demonstrated attitudes and values as well, but it appears to be neither designed or intended to address the knowledge or aptitude components of a hypothetical "certification".

Having this option still represents a significant leap forward from the status quo of course! However, I am interested to unpack and discuss we can make progress as a community in the other areas as well.

Cheers,
Stephen. 

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

 

On 22/03/2021 12:00 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Hi Aprill 

 

ISKO Singapore is holding a virtual panel with CILIP on the KM Chartership on 18 June (the panel will include a couple of chartership candidates, one of whom is a consultant). You (and other list members) are welcome to register and participate in  this event - there is no charge. Note the timing is 4pm Singapore time.

 

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

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

<image001.jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 6:17 AM, Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:

 

As above... 
Are any consultants here thinking about the CILIP chartership? Wondering what the value of joining will be when I can't get an employer to cover the cost.


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

 

 


Re: Network graphs? #SNA-ONA-VNA

Ninez Piezas-Jerbi
 

Thanks, Stephen, Thanks Chris!

best,
Ninez

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:40 PM Chris Collison <chris.collison@...> wrote:

Hey Ninez,

If you mean network analysis graphs, I’d recommend Gephi or NodeXL - both of those will handle the WTO population.  I’d recommend ONASurveys for the data gathering (not free, but very effective).

Kind regards,

Chris

 

From: <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply to: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Monday, 22 March 2021 at 14:36
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Network graphs?

 

Free or paid? How many nodes? Graph Online is excellent for small projects.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 22/03/2021 11:39 pm, Ninez Piezas-Jerbi wrote:

Hello,

I was wondering if someone in the network has any good tools to recommend to make network graphs?
I'd be so grateful.

best regards,
Ninez


Re: CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM chartership and what about consultants? #certification #consulting

Robert L. Bogue
 

Stephen –

 

I don’t think you’re off track but I’d like to share a trick that was shared with me – that may give you a more productive track.

 

About 2010 I wrote a course for Microsoft “Implementing ECM on SharePoint.”  It was for their partners and enterprise customers.  We got very caught up in the best way to do things for the largest organizations and the challenges that they might encounter.  My client and friend suggested that I consider 80%-80% as a rule.  What is about 80% of what someone would need to know for the deployments that were in the implementation of the bottom 80% of the market.  Later in the project we used the idea that you’ve got an expert running the project but you just need to know enough to communicate with them intelligently.  What would you need to know?

 

For me, I think in the core skills category, there’s at least an introduction to motivation.  I think there’s a bit of systems thinking.  There’s a bit of community building.

 

I could probably keep going and identify some broad areas… and underneath that define what key skills, behaviors, or techniques that I think everyone should know about, and then I’d decide what level they’d have to know.  For instance, I think everyone should understand World Café – not because they have to run it but because they should understand how and why it works.  I’d put this as a requisite skill for any KM practitioner at any level.

 

I think foundations on trust are essential.  I’d make the key skill identification of behaviors that erode trust.  They don’t have to solve them… just see them and be able to research/learn more or get a lead involved to help fix it.

 

I could go on… I think that you’re trying to solve the right problem but I’m not sure the approach to decomposition will lead to the results you desire.  I think that you’ll be better off to think about the kind of person that you’d like to mentor and what you want them to know at or near the beginning of their career.  (This is the same as above just reframed.)

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 10:31 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Amazing stuff Robert -- thanks!

You've put your finger on one of the key problems with KM certification: What does the role of an associate / beginner KM professional look like? Does such a thing exist?

It would have to incorporate some of the skills that will develop into a more expert role down the line, otherwise there's no meaningful connection or progression between the two. But it can't be so complex in terms of experience or otherwise, as you say, practitioners will be less likely to think they need it (especially if they already have a postgraduate qualification) and the market demand to possess the formal certification is likely to remain low.

So we need both a starting point and a pathway. There are three basic ways I can think of to organise a profession:

  • Tiered roles primarily distinguished by experience and competence, eg Project Coordinator (Project+) -> Project Manager (PMP) -> Program Manager
  • Base entry role leading to multiple specialisations, eg Service Desk Operator -> System Administrator -> ICT Manager / Solutions Architect / Database Administrator / etc
  • Multiple entry roles, each with different career advancement paths, eg Nurse -> Nurse Practitioner / Remote Medicine vs Doctor -> GP / Surgeon / ENT etc

I believe there has previously been an assumption (including by me) that any "basic" KM role would be oriented linearly towards more expert KM opportunities.

However, when I attempted at documenting a typology of KM roles a while back, I divided them without a great deal of thought into senior and operational roles. Now I am wondering whether it would be better to think of them as two separate career streams:

  • Strategic roles
    • Knowledge Program Manager
    • Knowledge Manager
    • Knowledge Architect
  • Operational roles
    • Knowledge Process Manager
    • Knowledge Analyst
    • Knowledge Process Officer

It seems unlikely that a deep understanding of ISO30401 would greatly benefit the operational type of role. On the other hand I believe it would be possible to outline a pragmatic curriculum to improve effectiveness, teach fundamentals (ie what a complex system is and why it matters) and a common set of terminology and methods recommended for adoption. It would fit the bill for meaningful competence training without a great deal of prior experience and match the described market need for most base to mid level KM roles.

On the other hand, a strategic role benefits more from study in complex systems, individual and group psychology, and information sciences along with training in key KM methods for diagnosing problems and then designing, implementing and managing new and effective KM interventions (often implemented by the operational roles). These are meaty subjects that are probably best suited to tertiary study, along with significant hands-on experience (or a simulation of the real thing). It seems unlikely that we'll ever achieve meaningful certification for these types of roles -- perhaps a "gold standard" style PMP if we're lucky and with a significant increase in market demand. (There will also likely be far fewer full-time roles in this space with a tendency towards consultations.)

Could be completely on the wrong track of course. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 22/03/2021 10:32 pm, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

Sorry I’m late to the party but allow me to offer a few thoughts based on my experience in a couple of different arenas.

 

First, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that certification is an indication that someone has met the standard.  The problem, as Patrick and Murray point to, is that we don’t have a standard.

 

Having been involved in the certification process for a vendor and an industry association, I can tell you setting a standard isn’t as easy as it seems and it can easily be drawn into a bad place by the subject matter experts deciding that their area of specialty is the most important.   (It can equally be pulled off by people who are not practical.  I’ll get to that in a moment.)  When you’re building a fundamentals, or baseline, certification it’s easy enough to select the key things that everyone should know.  The fundamental models (correct or not) that people should be aware of since they’re likely to encounter them.  It becomes difficult, as Patrick points to when you get to the point of the knowledge being specialized.

 

The answer then is – and should be – to develop the associate/beginner certification which includes the things that everyone should know.  Connecting this to academia – it’s all the stuff that goes in the 101 course for other disciplines.  The advanced stuff doesn’t psychometrically validate well and setting a “cut score” becomes challenging.  Consider an exam and certification with four major areas.  Let’s say that someone demonstrates good competency in three of the four areas but has no knowledge whatsoever in the fourth.  You end up with 85/85/85/20 resulting in a 68.75%.  Should that be passing?  (By the way, I assume 20% because I’m assuming multiple choice 5 answer questions and pure guesses since they psychometrically validate well.)  Cut scores are generally set around 70%.  However, the more challenging problem is that the certification meets a standard.  One should reasonably expect that someone certified should know all four content areas.  (This was precisely a question I had to help answer on an exam/certification that failed in the market.)

 

The second truth to advanced certifications is that they’re not profitable.  You don’t drive enough volume to justify your development costs.  Years ago the most lucrative certification was A+ for CompTIA because of the volume.  It served a real place in the market.  The “big box” retailers needed a way to certify their computer technicians.  It drove a ton of volume.   So while subject matter experts want to work on advanced certifications, it’s the wrong place to go if you want the market to move.  My work with the Server+ certification is public knowledge so I can say that while we did the right things for skills match there wasn’t a market demand because no one used it as a screening criteria for candidates.

 

I can tell you if you include too many people’s personal beliefs into what’s important it will sink the validity of the certification.  The market won’t care and they won’t interpret it as valid.  The reason that A+ worked is because it was directly relevant to the job skills necessary to be successful.  Doing that with a more heuristic role is exponentially more difficult.

 

Let me share my experience with my work on change management.  Change management suffers the same fate as KM relative to certification.  In their case ACMP is pushing their CCMP certification which is based on their “Standard.” (literally that’s what it’s called.)  The problem is the standard is garbage.  It’s a project management approach to change management that just doesn’t work but they’re still off certifying people because it’s something.  The Change Management Institute (CMI) is certifying folks but they’ve got a sole-source training contract with a vendor and a body of knowledge that got pulled into a book and really unwound.  It turned into a mishmash of everything that someone might want to know with no focus.  Prosci is the big commercial player and they’re certifying people on their model.  The problem is that it doesn’t make people broadly more able to manage change.  I put together what I think are fundamentals to the profession but then again I’m building training.  I don’t care about certifying people because I want them to have the skills and I don’t think I could set the standard if I want to.  Neither of the industry associations are doing an effective job at creating an entry level certification that indicates basic competence.

 

(Sidebar: Consider the fact that there’s very little difference between the skills necessary for change management and knowledge management.  The core skills overlap is very large.)

 

Let me shift to project management where PMI has their PMP.  Everyone thinks about this as the “gold standard.”  It requires experience.  It’s relatively difficult.  The problem is that it’s too hard for the project coordinators that a project or program manager needs to manage projects.  The result, is that project coordinators (lower level staff) get certified with CompTIA’s Project+.  It’s a step towards project management’s gold standard PMP certification but indicates baseline skills and lexicon that a PMP certified project manager should expect.  As a result, it’s successful.  So while PMI is successful with their PMP program, it’s a bit in spite of themselves.  Others in the market filled the gap.

 

However, PMI raises an interesting point… Do you have to have experience to get the certification?  My answer is an emphatic no.  However, as a certification provider you want the answer to be yes.  Because you want to demonstrate that your certification is higher value.  However, I’ve met people with the same first year experience twenty times – and people that have crammed 20 years of experience into less than a year.  So in my mind, experience means nothing.  However, it guards the certification provider against the claim that people don’t know the things that the certification is supposed to ensure.  (Paper MCSEs was common for the Windows NT 4 days because people couldn’t do the work.)  My answer to this is improve the relevance of your questions to the real world skills that people are being asked to demonstrate.

 

Oh, and ACMP requires that you demonstrate 21 hours of training from one of their qualified training providers – or you come up with some way of them agreeing that you’ve done 21 hours of training.  As most of you here know, I’ve read and reviewed a book every single week for several years.  I’ve got 270 book reviews on the confident change management site.  However, it’s unclear if they’d count this as “training.”  As a point of fact, I applied to become one of their qualified education providers and my application was denied.  The point of this – requiring training to get a certification is not a good idea for a certification.  At the same time, I recognize and support the reason why training providers have to do this.  The market demands it of them.  In the absence of a good certification, any certification will do.

 

In short, we need an entry level certification for KM that works from the mode of the things that everyone needs to know, that’s practical to the real work we all do (and the others on our team do).

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Murray Jennex via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:08 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

I would argue that it is not the lack of a body of knowledge that makes certification difficult, it is the lack of standard outcomes and how to achieve them that makes certification impossible as there is not a measuring stick to measure against, hence you can't certify anyone to a base level of performance......murray jennex 


-----Original Message-----
From: bill@... <bill@...>
To: main@sikm.groups.io <main@sikm.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 12:42 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

All great points Patrick!

 

Thank you 

 

Bill

Bill Kaplan

Founder

Working Knowledge CSP

 

 




On Mar 21, 2021, at 23:13, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

 Thanks Bill. I especially like the way you advocate separation between certification and training. However while the Body of Knowledge (BOK) approach does appear at first sight to hold value, some providers have merged their training content with “BOK” claims, thus blurring that separation. We still lack independent means of verifying a body of knowledge around KM, and I think we are still a very long way off from having anything that is sufficiently diverse and deep to cover the diversity of work contexts we deal with.

 

What I like about the CILIP offering is that it is practical. It advances the experience-based evaluation of KM practices, using portfolio building, mentors and the mechanism of peer review. That is a framework we have sadly lacked in the past.

 

There is no lack of training in KM, whether “certification”-oriented or otherwise and my instinct would be that (aside from foundational education programmes in KM), there may be more value in seeking out specialised training in deep niches for the specialised aspects of KM we may be dealing with at any given time. 

 

KM practices and needs (as you point out) are so diverse that I am not sure how valuable a generalised (context-free) certification course can be, aside from building some foundational knowledge, which is useful for beginners but rapidly loses value when we get into more specialised areas of work. That is precisely the same problem that a BOK approach runs into.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone: 

+65 98528511

web: 

www.straitsknowledge.com
resources: 

www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping: 

www.aithinsoftware.com


<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 1:53 PM, bill@... wrote:

 

Stephen and Patrick--

 

This subject resurfaces regularly.  I can share two Linked In articles I posted on certification in KM and why it cannot yet exist.  The articles share many of your points.

 

 

Training organizations offer “certification” but in reality the “certification” is a certificate demonstrating completion of offered training. While there may be personal value in taking the training it is not certification around a body of knowledge.

 

 

best

 

Bill

 

 

<image002.png>

 

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

 

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 21:29
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Hi Patrick,

I'm very much looking forward to this session. BTW, I ended up re-reading a 2006 article of yours and think it is definitely worth considering to what extent CILIP is or is not a "certification" program, noting the the challenges and goals you outlined so nicely back then.

I have taken the liberty of lightly revising what you wrote to reflect my assessment of our present situation as per the below:

What would you expect to see in a professional KM certification programme?

A "strong" KM certification programme would need diverse instructional and testing in:

  1. Knowledge: taught input and verbal testing (ie describe the difference between a knowledge strategy and a knowledge management strategy)
  2. Skills: demonstration, supervised practice and outcomes based testing (ie put together a project plan for a knowledge audit; conduct an after action review session for a project team)
  3. Attitudes and Values: cannot be taught or tested, can only be modelled and observed in an environment of continuing professional interaction and peer review
  4. Aptitudes: cannot be taught, can only be uncovered and fostered over time, most likely in a mentoring/coaching kind of partnership

And therefore a good KM certification programme would need to have:

  1. taught and examined knowledge input
  2. guided and assessed practice
  3. continuing professional interaction and peer review over time
  4. mentoring and coaching structures

Professional societies or networks are clearly the best candidates for providing this combination of features: as good as universities are, few of them are well placed to develop and deliver the practice based skills and professional interaction areas. To avoid the inevitable distortions of commercial gain, certification and training courses in KM should be not-for-profit and non-commercial in nature.

A problem is that -- with the possible exception of the ISO 30401 KMS standard -- there is still no commonly accepted set of concepts, theories and practices that embody KM. As such we must acknowledge that from the "knowledge" point of view (as distinct from skills, values and aptitudes), any certification is likely to only represent one perspective among many.

Based on what I know of the CILIP chartership, my assessment is that the focus is primarily on demonstrated skills. There is definitely some intent to test demonstrated attitudes and values as well, but it appears to be neither designed or intended to address the knowledge or aptitude components of a hypothetical "certification".

Having this option still represents a significant leap forward from the status quo of course! However, I am interested to unpack and discuss we can make progress as a community in the other areas as well.

Cheers,
Stephen. 

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

 

On 22/03/2021 12:00 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Hi Aprill 

 

ISKO Singapore is holding a virtual panel with CILIP on the KM Chartership on 18 June (the panel will include a couple of chartership candidates, one of whom is a consultant). You (and other list members) are welcome to register and participate in  this event - there is no charge. Note the timing is 4pm Singapore time.

 

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

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

<image001.jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 6:17 AM, Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:

 

As above... 
Are any consultants here thinking about the CILIP chartership? Wondering what the value of joining will be when I can't get an employer to cover the cost.


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

 

 


Re: Network graphs? #SNA-ONA-VNA

Chris Collison
 

Hey Ninez,

If you mean network analysis graphs, I’d recommend Gephi or NodeXL - both of those will handle the WTO population.  I’d recommend ONASurveys for the data gathering (not free, but very effective).

Kind regards,

Chris

 

From: <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply to: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Monday, 22 March 2021 at 14:36
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Network graphs?

 

Free or paid? How many nodes? Graph Online is excellent for small projects.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 22/03/2021 11:39 pm, Ninez Piezas-Jerbi wrote:

Hello,

I was wondering if someone in the network has any good tools to recommend to make network graphs?
I'd be so grateful.

best regards,
Ninez


Re: Network graphs? #SNA-ONA-VNA

Stephen Bounds
 

Free or paid? How many nodes? Graph Online is excellent for small projects.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 22/03/2021 11:39 pm, Ninez Piezas-Jerbi wrote:

Hello,

I was wondering if someone in the network has any good tools to recommend to make network graphs?
I'd be so grateful.

best regards,
Ninez


Re: CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM chartership and what about consultants? #certification #consulting

Stephen Bounds
 

Amazing stuff Robert -- thanks!

You've put your finger on one of the key problems with KM certification: What does the role of an associate / beginner KM professional look like? Does such a thing exist?

It would have to incorporate some of the skills that will develop into a more expert role down the line, otherwise there's no meaningful connection or progression between the two. But it can't be so complex in terms of experience or otherwise, as you say, practitioners will be less likely to think they need it (especially if they already have a postgraduate qualification) and the market demand to possess the formal certification is likely to remain low.

So we need both a starting point and a pathway. There are three basic ways I can think of to organise a profession:

  • Tiered roles primarily distinguished by experience and competence, eg Project Coordinator (Project+) -> Project Manager (PMP) -> Program Manager
  • Base entry role leading to multiple specialisations, eg Service Desk Operator -> System Administrator -> ICT Manager / Solutions Architect / Database Administrator / etc
  • Multiple entry roles, each with different career advancement paths, eg Nurse -> Nurse Practitioner / Remote Medicine vs Doctor -> GP / Surgeon / ENT etc

I believe there has previously been an assumption (including by me) that any "basic" KM role would be oriented linearly towards more expert KM opportunities.

However, when I attempted at documenting a typology of KM roles a while back, I divided them without a great deal of thought into senior and operational roles. Now I am wondering whether it would be better to think of them as two separate career streams:

  • Strategic roles
    • Knowledge Program Manager
    • Knowledge Manager
    • Knowledge Architect
  • Operational roles
    • Knowledge Process Manager
    • Knowledge Analyst
    • Knowledge Process Officer

It seems unlikely that a deep understanding of ISO30401 would greatly benefit the operational type of role. On the other hand I believe it would be possible to outline a pragmatic curriculum to improve effectiveness, teach fundamentals (ie what a complex system is and why it matters) and a common set of terminology and methods recommended for adoption. It would fit the bill for meaningful competence training without a great deal of prior experience and match the described market need for most base to mid level KM roles.

On the other hand, a strategic role benefits more from study in complex systems, individual and group psychology, and information sciences along with training in key KM methods for diagnosing problems and then designing, implementing and managing new and effective KM interventions (often implemented by the operational roles). These are meaty subjects that are probably best suited to tertiary study, along with significant hands-on experience (or a simulation of the real thing). It seems unlikely that we'll ever achieve meaningful certification for these types of roles -- perhaps a "gold standard" style PMP if we're lucky and with a significant increase in market demand. (There will also likely be far fewer full-time roles in this space with a tendency towards consultations.)

Could be completely on the wrong track of course. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 22/03/2021 10:32 pm, Robert L. Bogue wrote:

Sorry I’m late to the party but allow me to offer a few thoughts based on my experience in a couple of different arenas.

 

First, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that certification is an indication that someone has met the standard.  The problem, as Patrick and Murray point to, is that we don’t have a standard.

 

Having been involved in the certification process for a vendor and an industry association, I can tell you setting a standard isn’t as easy as it seems and it can easily be drawn into a bad place by the subject matter experts deciding that their area of specialty is the most important.   (It can equally be pulled off by people who are not practical.  I’ll get to that in a moment.)  When you’re building a fundamentals, or baseline, certification it’s easy enough to select the key things that everyone should know.  The fundamental models (correct or not) that people should be aware of since they’re likely to encounter them.  It becomes difficult, as Patrick points to when you get to the point of the knowledge being specialized.

 

The answer then is – and should be – to develop the associate/beginner certification which includes the things that everyone should know.  Connecting this to academia – it’s all the stuff that goes in the 101 course for other disciplines.  The advanced stuff doesn’t psychometrically validate well and setting a “cut score” becomes challenging.  Consider an exam and certification with four major areas.  Let’s say that someone demonstrates good competency in three of the four areas but has no knowledge whatsoever in the fourth.  You end up with 85/85/85/20 resulting in a 68.75%.  Should that be passing?  (By the way, I assume 20% because I’m assuming multiple choice 5 answer questions and pure guesses since they psychometrically validate well.)  Cut scores are generally set around 70%.  However, the more challenging problem is that the certification meets a standard.  One should reasonably expect that someone certified should know all four content areas.  (This was precisely a question I had to help answer on an exam/certification that failed in the market.)

 

The second truth to advanced certifications is that they’re not profitable.  You don’t drive enough volume to justify your development costs.  Years ago the most lucrative certification was A+ for CompTIA because of the volume.  It served a real place in the market.  The “big box” retailers needed a way to certify their computer technicians.  It drove a ton of volume.   So while subject matter experts want to work on advanced certifications, it’s the wrong place to go if you want the market to move.  My work with the Server+ certification is public knowledge so I can say that while we did the right things for skills match there wasn’t a market demand because no one used it as a screening criteria for candidates.

 

I can tell you if you include too many people’s personal beliefs into what’s important it will sink the validity of the certification.  The market won’t care and they won’t interpret it as valid.  The reason that A+ worked is because it was directly relevant to the job skills necessary to be successful.  Doing that with a more heuristic role is exponentially more difficult.

 

Let me share my experience with my work on change management.  Change management suffers the same fate as KM relative to certification.  In their case ACMP is pushing their CCMP certification which is based on their “Standard.” (literally that’s what it’s called.)  The problem is the standard is garbage.  It’s a project management approach to change management that just doesn’t work but they’re still off certifying people because it’s something.  The Change Management Institute (CMI) is certifying folks but they’ve got a sole-source training contract with a vendor and a body of knowledge that got pulled into a book and really unwound.  It turned into a mishmash of everything that someone might want to know with no focus.  Prosci is the big commercial player and they’re certifying people on their model.  The problem is that it doesn’t make people broadly more able to manage change.  I put together what I think are fundamentals to the profession but then again I’m building training.  I don’t care about certifying people because I want them to have the skills and I don’t think I could set the standard if I want to.  Neither of the industry associations are doing an effective job at creating an entry level certification that indicates basic competence.

 

(Sidebar: Consider the fact that there’s very little difference between the skills necessary for change management and knowledge management.  The core skills overlap is very large.)

 

Let me shift to project management where PMI has their PMP.  Everyone thinks about this as the “gold standard.”  It requires experience.  It’s relatively difficult.  The problem is that it’s too hard for the project coordinators that a project or program manager needs to manage projects.  The result, is that project coordinators (lower level staff) get certified with CompTIA’s Project+.  It’s a step towards project management’s gold standard PMP certification but indicates baseline skills and lexicon that a PMP certified project manager should expect.  As a result, it’s successful.  So while PMI is successful with their PMP program, it’s a bit in spite of themselves.  Others in the market filled the gap.

 

However, PMI raises an interesting point… Do you have to have experience to get the certification?  My answer is an emphatic no.  However, as a certification provider you want the answer to be yes.  Because you want to demonstrate that your certification is higher value.  However, I’ve met people with the same first year experience twenty times – and people that have crammed 20 years of experience into less than a year.  So in my mind, experience means nothing.  However, it guards the certification provider against the claim that people don’t know the things that the certification is supposed to ensure.  (Paper MCSEs was common for the Windows NT 4 days because people couldn’t do the work.)  My answer to this is improve the relevance of your questions to the real world skills that people are being asked to demonstrate.

 

Oh, and ACMP requires that you demonstrate 21 hours of training from one of their qualified training providers – or you come up with some way of them agreeing that you’ve done 21 hours of training.  As most of you here know, I’ve read and reviewed a book every single week for several years.  I’ve got 270 book reviews on the confident change management site.  However, it’s unclear if they’d count this as “training.”  As a point of fact, I applied to become one of their qualified education providers and my application was denied.  The point of this – requiring training to get a certification is not a good idea for a certification.  At the same time, I recognize and support the reason why training providers have to do this.  The market demands it of them.  In the absence of a good certification, any certification will do.

 

In short, we need an entry level certification for KM that works from the mode of the things that everyone needs to know, that’s practical to the real work we all do (and the others on our team do).

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Murray Jennex via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:08 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

I would argue that it is not the lack of a body of knowledge that makes certification difficult, it is the lack of standard outcomes and how to achieve them that makes certification impossible as there is not a measuring stick to measure against, hence you can't certify anyone to a base level of performance......murray jennex 

-----Original Message-----
From: bill@... <bill@...>
To: main@sikm.groups.io <main@sikm.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 12:42 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

All great points Patrick!

 

Thank you 

 

Bill

Bill Kaplan

Founder

Working Knowledge CSP

 

 



On Mar 21, 2021, at 23:13, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

 Thanks Bill. I especially like the way you advocate separation between certification and training. However while the Body of Knowledge (BOK) approach does appear at first sight to hold value, some providers have merged their training content with “BOK” claims, thus blurring that separation. We still lack independent means of verifying a body of knowledge around KM, and I think we are still a very long way off from having anything that is sufficiently diverse and deep to cover the diversity of work contexts we deal with.

 

What I like about the CILIP offering is that it is practical. It advances the experience-based evaluation of KM practices, using portfolio building, mentors and the mechanism of peer review. That is a framework we have sadly lacked in the past.

 

There is no lack of training in KM, whether “certification”-oriented or otherwise and my instinct would be that (aside from foundational education programmes in KM), there may be more value in seeking out specialised training in deep niches for the specialised aspects of KM we may be dealing with at any given time. 

 

KM practices and needs (as you point out) are so diverse that I am not sure how valuable a generalised (context-free) certification course can be, aside from building some foundational knowledge, which is useful for beginners but rapidly loses value when we get into more specialised areas of work. That is precisely the same problem that a BOK approach runs into.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone: 

+65 98528511

web: 

www.straitsknowledge.com
resources: 

www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping: 

www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 1:53 PM, bill@... wrote:

 

Stephen and Patrick--

 

This subject resurfaces regularly.  I can share two Linked In articles I posted on certification in KM and why it cannot yet exist.  The articles share many of your points.

 

 

Training organizations offer “certification” but in reality the “certification” is a certificate demonstrating completion of offered training. While there may be personal value in taking the training it is not certification around a body of knowledge.

 

 

best

 

Bill

 

 

<image002.png>

 

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

 

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 21:29
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Hi Patrick,

I'm very much looking forward to this session. BTW, I ended up re-reading a 2006 article of yours and think it is definitely worth considering to what extent CILIP is or is not a "certification" program, noting the the challenges and goals you outlined so nicely back then.

I have taken the liberty of lightly revising what you wrote to reflect my assessment of our present situation as per the below:

What would you expect to see in a professional KM certification programme?

A "strong" KM certification programme would need diverse instructional and testing in:

  • Knowledge: taught input and verbal testing (ie describe the difference between a knowledge strategy and a knowledge management strategy)
  • Skills: demonstration, supervised practice and outcomes based testing (ie put together a project plan for a knowledge audit; conduct an after action review session for a project team)
  • Attitudes and Values: cannot be taught or tested, can only be modelled and observed in an environment of continuing professional interaction and peer review
  • Aptitudes: cannot be taught, can only be uncovered and fostered over time, most likely in a mentoring/coaching kind of partnership

And therefore a good KM certification programme would need to have:

  • taught and examined knowledge input
  • guided and assessed practice
  • continuing professional interaction and peer review over time
  • mentoring and coaching structures

Professional societies or networks are clearly the best candidates for providing this combination of features: as good as universities are, few of them are well placed to develop and deliver the practice based skills and professional interaction areas. To avoid the inevitable distortions of commercial gain, certification and training courses in KM should be not-for-profit and non-commercial in nature.

A problem is that -- with the possible exception of the ISO 30401 KMS standard -- there is still no commonly accepted set of concepts, theories and practices that embody KM. As such we must acknowledge that from the "knowledge" point of view (as distinct from skills, values and aptitudes), any certification is likely to only represent one perspective among many.

Based on what I know of the CILIP chartership, my assessment is that the focus is primarily on demonstrated skills. There is definitely some intent to test demonstrated attitudes and values as well, but it appears to be neither designed or intended to address the knowledge or aptitude components of a hypothetical "certification".

Having this option still represents a significant leap forward from the status quo of course! However, I am interested to unpack and discuss we can make progress as a community in the other areas as well.

Cheers,
Stephen. 

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

 

On 22/03/2021 12:00 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Hi Aprill 

 

ISKO Singapore is holding a virtual panel with CILIP on the KM Chartership on 18 June (the panel will include a couple of chartership candidates, one of whom is a consultant). You (and other list members) are welcome to register and participate in  this event - there is no charge. Note the timing is 4pm Singapore time.

 

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

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

<image001.jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 6:17 AM, Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:

 

As above... 
Are any consultants here thinking about the CILIP chartership? Wondering what the value of joining will be when I can't get an employer to cover the cost.


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

 

 


Network graphs? #SNA-ONA-VNA

Ninez Piezas-Jerbi
 

Hello,

I was wondering if someone in the network has any good tools to recommend to make network graphs?
I'd be so grateful.

best regards,
Ninez


Re: CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM chartership and what about consultants? #certification #consulting

Robert L. Bogue
 

Sorry I’m late to the party but allow me to offer a few thoughts based on my experience in a couple of different arenas.

 

First, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that certification is an indication that someone has met the standard.  The problem, as Patrick and Murray point to, is that we don’t have a standard.

 

Having been involved in the certification process for a vendor and an industry association, I can tell you setting a standard isn’t as easy as it seems and it can easily be drawn into a bad place by the subject matter experts deciding that their area of specialty is the most important.   (It can equally be pulled off by people who are not practical.  I’ll get to that in a moment.)  When you’re building a fundamentals, or baseline, certification it’s easy enough to select the key things that everyone should know.  The fundamental models (correct or not) that people should be aware of since they’re likely to encounter them.  It becomes difficult, as Patrick points to when you get to the point of the knowledge being specialized.

 

The answer then is – and should be – to develop the associate/beginner certification which includes the things that everyone should know.  Connecting this to academia – it’s all the stuff that goes in the 101 course for other disciplines.  The advanced stuff doesn’t psychometrically validate well and setting a “cut score” becomes challenging.  Consider an exam and certification with four major areas.  Let’s say that someone demonstrates good competency in three of the four areas but has no knowledge whatsoever in the fourth.  You end up with 85/85/85/20 resulting in a 68.75%.  Should that be passing?  (By the way, I assume 20% because I’m assuming multiple choice 5 answer questions and pure guesses since they psychometrically validate well.)  Cut scores are generally set around 70%.  However, the more challenging problem is that the certification meets a standard.  One should reasonably expect that someone certified should know all four content areas.  (This was precisely a question I had to help answer on an exam/certification that failed in the market.)

 

The second truth to advanced certifications is that they’re not profitable.  You don’t drive enough volume to justify your development costs.  Years ago the most lucrative certification was A+ for CompTIA because of the volume.  It served a real place in the market.  The “big box” retailers needed a way to certify their computer technicians.  It drove a ton of volume.   So while subject matter experts want to work on advanced certifications, it’s the wrong place to go if you want the market to move.  My work with the Server+ certification is public knowledge so I can say that while we did the right things for skills match there wasn’t a market demand because no one used it as a screening criteria for candidates.

 

I can tell you if you include too many people’s personal beliefs into what’s important it will sink the validity of the certification.  The market won’t care and they won’t interpret it as valid.  The reason that A+ worked is because it was directly relevant to the job skills necessary to be successful.  Doing that with a more heuristic role is exponentially more difficult.

 

Let me share my experience with my work on change management.  Change management suffers the same fate as KM relative to certification.  In their case ACMP is pushing their CCMP certification which is based on their “Standard.” (literally that’s what it’s called.)  The problem is the standard is garbage.  It’s a project management approach to change management that just doesn’t work but they’re still off certifying people because it’s something.  The Change Management Institute (CMI) is certifying folks but they’ve got a sole-source training contract with a vendor and a body of knowledge that got pulled into a book and really unwound.  It turned into a mishmash of everything that someone might want to know with no focus.  Prosci is the big commercial player and they’re certifying people on their model.  The problem is that it doesn’t make people broadly more able to manage change.  I put together what I think are fundamentals to the profession but then again I’m building training.  I don’t care about certifying people because I want them to have the skills and I don’t think I could set the standard if I want to.  Neither of the industry associations are doing an effective job at creating an entry level certification that indicates basic competence.

 

(Sidebar: Consider the fact that there’s very little difference between the skills necessary for change management and knowledge management.  The core skills overlap is very large.)

 

Let me shift to project management where PMI has their PMP.  Everyone thinks about this as the “gold standard.”  It requires experience.  It’s relatively difficult.  The problem is that it’s too hard for the project coordinators that a project or program manager needs to manage projects.  The result, is that project coordinators (lower level staff) get certified with CompTIA’s Project+.  It’s a step towards project management’s gold standard PMP certification but indicates baseline skills and lexicon that a PMP certified project manager should expect.  As a result, it’s successful.  So while PMI is successful with their PMP program, it’s a bit in spite of themselves.  Others in the market filled the gap.

 

However, PMI raises an interesting point… Do you have to have experience to get the certification?  My answer is an emphatic no.  However, as a certification provider you want the answer to be yes.  Because you want to demonstrate that your certification is higher value.  However, I’ve met people with the same first year experience twenty times – and people that have crammed 20 years of experience into less than a year.  So in my mind, experience means nothing.  However, it guards the certification provider against the claim that people don’t know the things that the certification is supposed to ensure.  (Paper MCSEs was common for the Windows NT 4 days because people couldn’t do the work.)  My answer to this is improve the relevance of your questions to the real world skills that people are being asked to demonstrate.

 

Oh, and ACMP requires that you demonstrate 21 hours of training from one of their qualified training providers – or you come up with some way of them agreeing that you’ve done 21 hours of training.  As most of you here know, I’ve read and reviewed a book every single week for several years.  I’ve got 270 book reviews on the confident change management site.  However, it’s unclear if they’d count this as “training.”  As a point of fact, I applied to become one of their qualified education providers and my application was denied.  The point of this – requiring training to get a certification is not a good idea for a certification.  At the same time, I recognize and support the reason why training providers have to do this.  The market demands it of them.  In the absence of a good certification, any certification will do.

 

In short, we need an entry level certification for KM that works from the mode of the things that everyone needs to know, that’s practical to the real work we all do (and the others on our team do).

 

Rob

 

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

Robert L. Bogue

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

Want to be confident about your change management efforts?  https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com

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

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Murray Jennex via groups.io
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:08 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

I would argue that it is not the lack of a body of knowledge that makes certification difficult, it is the lack of standard outcomes and how to achieve them that makes certification impossible as there is not a measuring stick to measure against, hence you can't certify anyone to a base level of performance......murray jennex 

-----Original Message-----
From: bill@... <bill@...>
To: main@sikm.groups.io <main@sikm.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 12:42 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

All great points Patrick!

 

Thank you 

 

Bill

Bill Kaplan

Founder

Working Knowledge CSP

 

 



On Mar 21, 2021, at 23:13, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

 Thanks Bill. I especially like the way you advocate separation between certification and training. However while the Body of Knowledge (BOK) approach does appear at first sight to hold value, some providers have merged their training content with “BOK” claims, thus blurring that separation. We still lack independent means of verifying a body of knowledge around KM, and I think we are still a very long way off from having anything that is sufficiently diverse and deep to cover the diversity of work contexts we deal with.

 

What I like about the CILIP offering is that it is practical. It advances the experience-based evaluation of KM practices, using portfolio building, mentors and the mechanism of peer review. That is a framework we have sadly lacked in the past.

 

There is no lack of training in KM, whether “certification”-oriented or otherwise and my instinct would be that (aside from foundational education programmes in KM), there may be more value in seeking out specialised training in deep niches for the specialised aspects of KM we may be dealing with at any given time. 

 

KM practices and needs (as you point out) are so diverse that I am not sure how valuable a generalised (context-free) certification course can be, aside from building some foundational knowledge, which is useful for beginners but rapidly loses value when we get into more specialised areas of work. That is precisely the same problem that a BOK approach runs into.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone: 

+65 98528511

web: 

www.straitsknowledge.com
resources: 

www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping: 

www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 1:53 PM, bill@... wrote:

 

Stephen and Patrick--

 

This subject resurfaces regularly.  I can share two Linked In articles I posted on certification in KM and why it cannot yet exist.  The articles share many of your points.

 

 

Training organizations offer “certification” but in reality the “certification” is a certificate demonstrating completion of offered training. While there may be personal value in taking the training it is not certification around a body of knowledge.

 

 

best

 

Bill

 

 

<image002.png>

 

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

 

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 21:29
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

 

Hi Patrick,

I'm very much looking forward to this session. BTW, I ended up re-reading a 2006 article of yours and think it is definitely worth considering to what extent CILIP is or is not a "certification" program, noting the the challenges and goals you outlined so nicely back then.

I have taken the liberty of lightly revising what you wrote to reflect my assessment of our present situation as per the below:

What would you expect to see in a professional KM certification programme?

A "strong" KM certification programme would need diverse instructional and testing in:

  • Knowledge: taught input and verbal testing (ie describe the difference between a knowledge strategy and a knowledge management strategy)
  • Skills: demonstration, supervised practice and outcomes based testing (ie put together a project plan for a knowledge audit; conduct an after action review session for a project team)
  • Attitudes and Values: cannot be taught or tested, can only be modelled and observed in an environment of continuing professional interaction and peer review
  • Aptitudes: cannot be taught, can only be uncovered and fostered over time, most likely in a mentoring/coaching kind of partnership

And therefore a good KM certification programme would need to have:

  • taught and examined knowledge input
  • guided and assessed practice
  • continuing professional interaction and peer review over time
  • mentoring and coaching structures

Professional societies or networks are clearly the best candidates for providing this combination of features: as good as universities are, few of them are well placed to develop and deliver the practice based skills and professional interaction areas. To avoid the inevitable distortions of commercial gain, certification and training courses in KM should be not-for-profit and non-commercial in nature.

A problem is that -- with the possible exception of the ISO 30401 KMS standard -- there is still no commonly accepted set of concepts, theories and practices that embody KM. As such we must acknowledge that from the "knowledge" point of view (as distinct from skills, values and aptitudes), any certification is likely to only represent one perspective among many.

Based on what I know of the CILIP chartership, my assessment is that the focus is primarily on demonstrated skills. There is definitely some intent to test demonstrated attitudes and values as well, but it appears to be neither designed or intended to address the knowledge or aptitude components of a hypothetical "certification".

Having this option still represents a significant leap forward from the status quo of course! However, I am interested to unpack and discuss we can make progress as a community in the other areas as well.

Cheers,
Stephen. 

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

 

On 22/03/2021 12:00 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Hi Aprill 

 

ISKO Singapore is holding a virtual panel with CILIP on the KM Chartership on 18 June (the panel will include a couple of chartership candidates, one of whom is a consultant). You (and other list members) are welcome to register and participate in  this event - there is no charge. Note the timing is 4pm Singapore time.

 

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

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

<image001.jpg>

 

On 22 Mar 2021, at 6:17 AM, Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:

 

As above... 
Are any consultants here thinking about the CILIP chartership? Wondering what the value of joining will be when I can't get an employer to cover the cost.


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

 

 


Re: CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM chartership and what about consultants? #certification #consulting

Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Murray

I partly agree and partly disagree with you. 

I absolutely agree on the need to link “knowledge” to outcomes. “BOK" can be and often is used as a context-free term, and certifying against a BOK and not against outcomes is as nonsensical as it is common.

I agree with you to the extent that “Body of Knowledge” can be taken just to mean a body of documented knowledge relating to a field that can be used as a reference resource. I think this is sometimes used as a distraction from the really hard work of demonstrating practical improvements (we compile some content and call it a BOK and teach it in a course and hey presto magic competencies can be inferred).

I reserve my agreement when it comes to a deeper meaning for Body of Knowledge - which in the certification context, should in principle comprise a body of independently validated and widely applicable knowledge, that:
  • is applicable across multiple organisational and cultural contexts, 
  • is clearly documented and organised and available for use, and 
  • has the quality of good evidence - i.e. the practices being documented are evidenced in practice and are known to produce reliable outcomes within defined boundaries. 

I do think this connotation for BOK would be entirely consistent with, and supportive of, an outcomes focused approach. 

Moreover, a purely outcomes-focused approach without any attention to systematic knowledge-building, learning and improvement, and to the quality of evidence in support of the approaches being used, is the equivalent of throwing whatever is to hand in our personal repertoires and experience at any problem we meet and seeing what sticks. 

We’ve been doing that for the past 25 years or more, and it has been a slow, hard and contentious crawl out of that slime (trying to make sense of all the things that “stuck” without knowing about all the things that didn’t) and towards some semblance of consistency and common ground in our community.

So I am both sceptical of the rush to approval of supposed “BOKs” in KM, but I am also convinced of the need for systematic knowledge building and sharing in our professional community. We are still a long way off from that goal. In the meantime, certifying against outcomes does seem like a practical interim approach.

I have one other small niggle, though. I am not sure that it is possible to measure against achievement of “standard” outcomes in all contexts, particularly in relation to very complex and unstructured environments. I would be happier if we talked about “improved” outcomes against baselines.

So I think agree with you on your main point but would express things differently (if less elegantly) on the detail.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 22 Mar 2021, at 4:08 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:

I would argue that it is not the lack of a body of knowledge that makes certification difficult, it is the lack of standard outcomes and how to achieve them that makes certification impossible as there is not a measuring stick to measure against, hence you can't certify anyone to a base level of performance......murray jennex 


-----Original Message-----
From: bill@... <bill@...>
To: main@sikm.groups.io <main@sikm.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 12:42 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

All great points Patrick!

Thank you 

Bill

Bill Kaplan
Founder
Working Knowledge CSP



On Mar 21, 2021, at 23:13, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

 Thanks Bill. I especially like the way you advocate separation between certification and training. However while the Body of Knowledge (BOK) approach does appear at first sight to hold value, some providers have merged their training content with “BOK” claims, thus blurring that separation. We still lack independent means of verifying a body of knowledge around KM, and I think we are still a very long way off from having anything that is sufficiently diverse and deep to cover the diversity of work contexts we deal with.

What I like about the CILIP offering is that it is practical. It advances the experience-based evaluation of KM practices, using portfolio building, mentors and the mechanism of peer review. That is a framework we have sadly lacked in the past.

There is no lack of training in KM, whether “certification”-oriented or otherwise and my instinct would be that (aside from foundational education programmes in KM), there may be more value in seeking out specialised training in deep niches for the specialised aspects of KM we may be dealing with at any given time. 

KM practices and needs (as you point out) are so diverse that I am not sure how valuable a generalised (context-free) certification course can be, aside from building some foundational knowledge, which is useful for beginners but rapidly loses value when we get into more specialised areas of work. That is precisely the same problem that a BOK approach runs into.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 22 Mar 2021, at 1:53 PM, bill@... wrote:

Stephen and Patrick--
 
This subject resurfaces regularly.  I can share two Linked In articles I posted on certification in KM and why it cannot yet exist.  The articles share many of your points.
 
 
Training organizations offer “certification” but in reality the “certification” is a certificate demonstrating completion of offered training. While there may be personal value in taking the training it is not certification around a body of knowledge.
 
 
best
 
Bill
 
 
<image002.png>
 
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com
 
 
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 21:29
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?
 
Hi Patrick,
I'm very much looking forward to this session. BTW, I ended up re-reading a 2006 article of yours and think it is definitely worth considering to what extent CILIP is or is not a "certification" program, noting the the challenges and goals you outlined so nicely back then.
I have taken the liberty of lightly revising what you wrote to reflect my assessment of our present situation as per the below:
What would you expect to see in a professional KM certification programme?
A "strong" KM certification programme would need diverse instructional and testing in:
  • Knowledge: taught input and verbal testing (ie describe the difference between a knowledge strategy and a knowledge management strategy)
  • Skills: demonstration, supervised practice and outcomes based testing (ie put together a project plan for a knowledge audit; conduct an after action review session for a project team)
  • Attitudes and Values: cannot be taught or tested, can only be modelled and observed in an environment of continuing professional interaction and peer review
  • Aptitudes: cannot be taught, can only be uncovered and fostered over time, most likely in a mentoring/coaching kind of partnership
And therefore a good KM certification programme would need to have:
  • taught and examined knowledge input
  • guided and assessed practice
  • continuing professional interaction and peer review over time
  • mentoring and coaching structures
Professional societies or networks are clearly the best candidates for providing this combination of features: as good as universities are, few of them are well placed to develop and deliver the practice based skills and professional interaction areas. To avoid the inevitable distortions of commercial gain, certification and training courses in KM should be not-for-profit and non-commercial in nature.
A problem is that -- with the possible exception of the ISO 30401 KMS standard -- there is still no commonly accepted set of concepts, theories and practices that embody KM. As such we must acknowledge that from the "knowledge" point of view (as distinct from skills, values and aptitudes), any certification is likely to only represent one perspective among many.
Based on what I know of the CILIP chartership, my assessment is that the focus is primarily on demonstrated skills. There is definitely some intent to test demonstrated attitudes and values as well, but it appears to be neither designed or intended to address the knowledge or aptitude components of a hypothetical "certification".
Having this option still represents a significant leap forward from the status quo of course! However, I am interested to unpack and discuss we can make progress as a community in the other areas as well.
Cheers,
Stephen. 
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
 
On 22/03/2021 12:00 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Aprill 
 
ISKO Singapore is holding a virtual panel with CILIP on the KM Chartership on 18 June (the panel will include a couple of chartership candidates, one of whom is a consultant). You (and other list members) are welcome to register and participate in  this event - there is no charge. Note the timing is 4pm Singapore time.
 
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

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

<image001.jpg>
 
On 22 Mar 2021, at 6:17 AM, Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:
 
As above... 
Are any consultants here thinking about the CILIP chartership? Wondering what the value of joining will be when I can't get an employer to cover the cost.


-- 

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



Re: CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM chartership and what about consultants? #certification #consulting

Murray Jennex
 

I would argue that it is not the lack of a body of knowledge that makes certification difficult, it is the lack of standard outcomes and how to achieve them that makes certification impossible as there is not a measuring stick to measure against, hence you can't certify anyone to a base level of performance......murray jennex 


-----Original Message-----
From: bill@... <bill@...>
To: main@sikm.groups.io <main@sikm.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 12:42 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?

All great points Patrick!

Thank you 

Bill

Bill Kaplan
Founder
Working Knowledge CSP



On Mar 21, 2021, at 23:13, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

 Thanks Bill. I especially like the way you advocate separation between certification and training. However while the Body of Knowledge (BOK) approach does appear at first sight to hold value, some providers have merged their training content with “BOK” claims, thus blurring that separation. We still lack independent means of verifying a body of knowledge around KM, and I think we are still a very long way off from having anything that is sufficiently diverse and deep to cover the diversity of work contexts we deal with.

What I like about the CILIP offering is that it is practical. It advances the experience-based evaluation of KM practices, using portfolio building, mentors and the mechanism of peer review. That is a framework we have sadly lacked in the past.

There is no lack of training in KM, whether “certification”-oriented or otherwise and my instinct would be that (aside from foundational education programmes in KM), there may be more value in seeking out specialised training in deep niches for the specialised aspects of KM we may be dealing with at any given time. 

KM practices and needs (as you point out) are so diverse that I am not sure how valuable a generalised (context-free) certification course can be, aside from building some foundational knowledge, which is useful for beginners but rapidly loses value when we get into more specialised areas of work. That is precisely the same problem that a BOK approach runs into.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 22 Mar 2021, at 1:53 PM, bill@... wrote:

Stephen and Patrick--
 
This subject resurfaces regularly.  I can share two Linked In articles I posted on certification in KM and why it cannot yet exist.  The articles share many of your points.
 
 
Training organizations offer “certification” but in reality the “certification” is a certificate demonstrating completion of offered training. While there may be personal value in taking the training it is not certification around a body of knowledge.
 
 
best
 
Bill
 
 
<image002.png>
 
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com
 
 
 
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 21:29
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] CILIP - Is anyone thinking about taking up the KM #chartership... and what about consultants?
 
Hi Patrick,
I'm very much looking forward to this session. BTW, I ended up re-reading a 2006 article of yours and think it is definitely worth considering to what extent CILIP is or is not a "certification" program, noting the the challenges and goals you outlined so nicely back then.
I have taken the liberty of lightly revising what you wrote to reflect my assessment of our present situation as per the below:
What would you expect to see in a professional KM certification programme?
A "strong" KM certification programme would need diverse instructional and testing in:
  • Knowledge: taught input and verbal testing (ie describe the difference between a knowledge strategy and a knowledge management strategy)
  • Skills: demonstration, supervised practice and outcomes based testing (ie put together a project plan for a knowledge audit; conduct an after action review session for a project team)
  • Attitudes and Values: cannot be taught or tested, can only be modelled and observed in an environment of continuing professional interaction and peer review
  • Aptitudes: cannot be taught, can only be uncovered and fostered over time, most likely in a mentoring/coaching kind of partnership
And therefore a good KM certification programme would need to have:
  • taught and examined knowledge input
  • guided and assessed practice
  • continuing professional interaction and peer review over time
  • mentoring and coaching structures
Professional societies or networks are clearly the best candidates for providing this combination of features: as good as universities are, few of them are well placed to develop and deliver the practice based skills and professional interaction areas. To avoid the inevitable distortions of commercial gain, certification and training courses in KM should be not-for-profit and non-commercial in nature.
A problem is that -- with the possible exception of the ISO 30401 KMS standard -- there is still no commonly accepted set of concepts, theories and practices that embody KM. As such we must acknowledge that from the "knowledge" point of view (as distinct from skills, values and aptitudes), any certification is likely to only represent one perspective among many.
Based on what I know of the CILIP chartership, my assessment is that the focus is primarily on demonstrated skills. There is definitely some intent to test demonstrated attitudes and values as well, but it appears to be neither designed or intended to address the knowledge or aptitude components of a hypothetical "certification".
Having this option still represents a significant leap forward from the status quo of course! However, I am interested to unpack and discuss we can make progress as a community in the other areas as well.
Cheers,
Stephen. 
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
 
On 22/03/2021 12:00 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Aprill 
 
ISKO Singapore is holding a virtual panel with CILIP on the KM Chartership on 18 June (the panel will include a couple of chartership candidates, one of whom is a consultant). You (and other list members) are welcome to register and participate in  this event - there is no charge. Note the timing is 4pm Singapore time.
 
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                                    +65 98528511

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

<image001.jpg>
 
On 22 Mar 2021, at 6:17 AM, Aprill Allen <aprill@...> wrote:
 
As above... 
Are any consultants here thinking about the CILIP chartership? Wondering what the value of joining will be when I can't get an employer to cover the cost.


-- 

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

681 - 700 of 9503