Date   

Re: Here we go again? Searchable video. #knowledge-transfer #search #video

 

@Stan - may @Eudald could demo Flaps for us on an upcoming call and show us some of the customer use cases where it’s working well. 
--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: Here we go again? Searchable video. #knowledge-transfer #search #video

 

Great find, @John_McQuary - this is brilliant! Thanks for sharing. So good see that AI/ML-powered video is finally getting some traction. (If I were still practicing I’d use the example you shared in client pitches and talks on KM). 
--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: Here we go again? Searchable video. #knowledge-transfer #search #video

John McQuary
 

On May 20, 2021, at 7:03 PM, Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:



Interesting, Stephen. I wasn’t thinking about from the standpoint of meetings and zoom calls - but that in itself presents another interesting use case. And there sure are a lot of calls recorded taking up space on servers that I bet are never accessed again. 

What I was imagining was a library of “how to” videos, perhaps for field workers for example. So you’re out there repairing a piece of equipment in a chip fab, let’s say, and you video the repair, which is uploaded to a searchable video repository based on the make and model of the equipment, the type of repair, etc. The next time someone needs to fix that problem on that same type of equipment, they can “look over your shoulder” via the video and learn how to do it, saving time as well as expense of screw ups. Of course, someone would have to vet the videos and determine which ones were using the approved procedure and which ones weren’t. 

Something like that, I would think, would be workable. The challenge has always been, as you say, finding the bit at 42:55 that is relevant to the specific question someone in the field has - figuring out which video it’s in is hard enough; then navigating quickly to the right bit - next to impossible thus far.  
--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Organization Management Rhythm #methods

John Antill
 

Using the Operational Management Rhythm approach of the U.S. military, this series focuses on meeting management and how it influences companies pertaining to the knowledge management field.

The military is a useful source of knowledge management (KM) tools and approaches that can be widely applied in organizations. Other examples include the After Action Review (AAR) and OODA loop.

In this series, I review the decision-making process and demonstrate how to prioritize different types of meetings to determine the critical paths needed to make essential decisions in the workplace. I explain:

  • The different types of meetings as described by Lucid Meetings (the 16 types of business meetings) and the U.S. military, and meeting rules.
  • Organization Management Rhythm, which is the deliberate cycle of staff and operational activities intended to synchronize current and future operations. The military calls this a Battle Rhythm (JP 3-33, 2018). This is called Organization Management Rhythm in a nonmilitary realm. A good rhythm enables knowledge sharing, knowledge management, and decision-making. It does this through situation awareness of what other staff elements are doing, allowing a future plan to be developed. This requires meetings to be established for a specific purpose, and it gives staff and management time to coordinate and work on tasks they have been assigned. It ensures that only the correct people are at a meeting. It is a dynamic way to ensure that everyone knows what is expected of them at all times. It defines, measures, analyzes, improves, and controls when, how, and why meetings take up valuable time.
  • The Organization Rhythm Change Management (ORCM) process, the purpose of which is to establish a codified, repeatable procedure for the adjudication of requests to modify the Organization Management Rhythm. This process is necessary in order to effectively manage the day-to-day organizational rhythm of the staff and ensure the information exchange requirements are delivered in a timely and effective manner. This process is designed to be both agile and enduring in that it can accommodate the full range of organization rhythm changes (i.e., one time temporary changes through to permanent additions/modifications of organization rhythm events).
  • The different models that various organizations search for and use for how to create an effective rhythm of business or Organization Management Rhythm. Each has its pros and cons. Each is aided by documents and software used to create tools, linkages, and metrics. Some of these models are available as a software suite.
  • Organization Management Rhythm products. This is a set of tools developed by different Department of Defense organizations. It allows for quick results. The metrics are shown from hours spent in each meeting to how the meetings and information exchange requirements support the decision process. When the entire organization is synced to the same calendar and uses it to judge when products should be reviewed, it eliminates the redundancy of work that is caused by mismatched rhythms. Organizations can then define the objectives they wish to achieve within a given time and create the tasks needed to accomplish them. This allows for example the planning of a release date or the launch of a new Christmas toy in October instead of early December. Each Organization Management Rhythm should have the strategy, vision, objectives, and tasks that define it laid out early in the process.
  • Initial Organization Management Rhythm analysis, which focuses on discovering the existing processes and products used to inform decision-making. Once an existing Organization Management Rhythm is identified, a detailed assessment is conducted consisting of a series of questions designed to highlight shortcomings or gaps in Organization Management Rhythm knowledge sharing and manageability. The products of the analysis model serve as both assessment and management tools.
  • The implementation of change. A systematic implementation plan defines the realities of the current Organization Management Rhythm, articulates the advantages of the proposed Organization Management Rhythm, and provides details of the transition making leadership comfortable and allowing them to foster change. Change in any organization is difficult, so buy-in from key players throughout the organization is critical to a successful Organization Management Rhythm implementation. Stakeholders who see the benefit become advocates and provide the tipping point that leadership needs to take ownership.
  • Ongoing management. Organizational information exchange requirements do not remain static. Transitions between operational phases, modification of objectives, and leadership changes, among other activities, should prompt a review of the effectiveness of the Organization Management Rhythm. The products of the Organization Management Rhythm analysis process supporting model serve as the management tool for organization leadership to determine how new information exchange requirements can be integrated into the current Organization Management Rhythm and when refinement is necessary.
https://realkm.com/2021/05/21/organization-management-rhythm-foreword-and-overview/
John Antill
M.S. KM
MCKM, CKS IA KT
Kent State MS KM Advisory Board Member
256-541-1229


Re: Here we go again? Searchable video. #knowledge-transfer #search #video

Eudald Camprubi
 

Hi all, 

At Flaps (getflaps.com), we are doing a similar approach: 

- We transcribe videos: videos that you can upload directly to the platform or even youtube videos. 
- We "cut" all the text and index it into meaningful paragraphs.
- We automatically detect and index all the key insights (ner detection).
- We offer multilingual semantic search to find, so you can find specific moments in videos with the information you need. 

In case you are interested in our approach on how we do it, I did this  short Loom video for you:  



Best! 



On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 02:08, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I remember that Oklahoma State developed a searchable video system for the army on doing IED identification and disarming.  They used the concept of knowledge nugget to keep the videos short (5-15 minutes) so that you didn't have to search through the video much to find what you need....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Thu, May 20, 2021 5:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Here we go again? Searchable video.

Interesting, Stephen. I wasn’t thinking about from the standpoint of meetings and zoom calls - but that in itself presents another interesting use case. And there sure are a lot of calls recorded taking up space on servers that I bet are never accessed again. 
What I was imagining was a library of “how to” videos, perhaps for field workers for example. So you’re out there repairing a piece of equipment in a chip fab, let’s say, and you video the repair, which is uploaded to a searchable video repository based on the make and model of the equipment, the type of repair, etc. The next time someone needs to fix that problem on that same type of equipment, they can “look over your shoulder” via the video and learn how to do it, saving time as well as expense of screw ups. Of course, someone would have to vet the videos and determine which ones were using the approved procedure and which ones weren’t. 
Something like that, I would think, would be workable. The challenge has always been, as you say, finding the bit at 42:55 that is relevant to the specific question someone in the field has - figuring out which video it’s in is hard enough; then navigating quickly to the right bit - next to impossible thus far.  
--
-Tom
--
Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts




Re: Guidance for building KM in Hi-tech startup #startup

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Patrick,

I'm not sure if a Wardley map is exactly the right framework to use, since one of the key aspects of his method is the idea that as a technology matures it tends towards commodification. I'm not sure if that was the focus you intended with your suggestion.

Back in around 2007, Fujitsu pioneered the idea of a "results chain" framework, which is visually similar but more closely aligned to your idea. They appear to have made the text describing the main aspects of the approach freely available (see pp27 onwards).

I've used the concept quite a few times, and particularly like the idea of tracking through intermediate and final outcomes; I do tend to find the "Assumptions" annotations a bit extraneous though. On the hand, I wasn't using this in a consulting context and so there was less pressure to "show my working" 😁

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 20/05/2021 5:25 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Has anyone here used Wardley maps in this kind of KM context? I suspect they would be useful in zeroing in on critical KM capabilities in relation to product and service deliverables. And the technique was originally developed in the context of startups/ high tech companies.

The challenge in this kind of situation is lack of deep understanding of how KM ecosystems work among the key stakeholders and so they might end up identifying KM initiatives that look like they might be useful in principle, but end up feeling like housekeeping measures and eventually run out of supportive steam. Wardley maps are meant to help teams dig into and zero in on critical capabilities in the value chain. I suspect the technique would be useful but haven’t seen explicit examples in a KM context. Anyone?


P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 20 May 2021, at 2:53 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Jay,

Sounds like you have a perfect case for undertaking a RROI (relative return on investment) evaluation.

From what you have said, you've already identified three key metrics to target, each of which is a clear proxy for an ultimate business goal:

  • Increased customer retention (proxy metric for increased revenue)
  • Higher sales conversion rate (proxy metric for increased revenue)
  • Decreased onboarding time for sales team (proxy metric for decreased cost of sales)

To complete an RROI evaluation, the basic stages are:

  1. Identify ultimate goals and create a method for valuing goal outcomes. This can be skipped, since it looks like you have a direct revenue goal. Some organisations (eg governments) need to assign a nominal dollar value another way, perhaps by looking at calculating lost client productivity.
  2. Identify proximate goals and options to target them. You have already identified the proximate goals, so the next step is to brainstorm a range of ways to "shift the needle".
  3. Model impact of options on proximate goals. In other words, what rate of change in proximate goals are you targeting and how much would it cost to implement the option you've identified?
  4. Model change in ultimate goals based on change in proximate goals. For example, if your average retained customer pays $1000 / month, a 1% increase in retention on 1000 new customers annually is worth $120,000 a year.
  5. Compare benefits to costs to find the RROI of each initiative. This is simply dividing the benefit achieved by the cost, similar to a conventional cost-benefit analysis. Use this rank to recommend the highest benefit:cost ratio first!

There's a fully worked example on page 5 of my KM4Dev paper about RROI, which is freely available online.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 20/05/2021 11:46 am, Jay Kreshel wrote:
Thanks for the reply. My boss EVP in Customer Success works on the executive staff. His discussions with the head of Marketing and Head of Sales. Their objectives are mostly around: 
  • Decreasing the amount of time our customers take to get value out of the application. 

  • Minimizing the misunderstandings for the sales team
  • Increasing customer retention. If we can get the Customer Success team to know all of the use cases around the products, they can share the whole value around the solution, thus increasing retention.
  • Increasing the ramp time for sales, CS. We will increase the pace of hiring and will need to help them to know about our product & industry in as a short period of time as possible.

We have been working for the past few months on new product releases and enablement for our customer-facing teams. We have technology, software, processes, & people that we have used to "appropriately" spread knowledge to the audiences, But, to your point, we have not been targeted in our approach. And we have not picked that key "Pain Point" that we should start with. 

Any thoughts as to which would be the highest reward with ease of implementation? to get that Bang for our early buck?

Jay. 

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:15 PM Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:

Who’s asking you to do it? Depending on where it’s coming from, it could reduce the emphasis placed on developing a complete value proposition for exec staff, at least in terms of a heavily quantifiable one. 

As for your approach, I’d start by trying to understand where the biggest gaps are that KM-type approaches might be able to bridge. Where are places where there is the most variance in performance among people doing similar types of work? Which processes have high variance of outcome? Which processes leverage the most amount of resource, either in terms of inputs or outcomes? 

By understanding this a bit more you’ll be in a good place to identify potential pain points that KM can address, and where the bang for KM buck is the greatest. 

If you’d like to read more about his type of approach check out this chapter I wrote on KM Lessons Learned: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4goA-zLqqvBZWFmNGVjZWQtZTRlMi00ZWMzLWIzNTUtNTBjZjkzMzM0Y2Y4/view?usp=drivesdk

(PS - after 20 years as a KM practitioner I retired and now work with tech startups in the Bay Area through an accelerator and via referrals). 

Good luck.
--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts



Re: Guidance for building KM in Hi-tech startup #startup

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Jay,

Yes, Stage 3 is about identifying multiple KM approaches. It is easy from a KM perspective to say "I know what a wiki is, therefore the problem to my solution is a wiki!" People then apply post-hoc rationalisations about why a Wiki will help people collaborate, waste less time searching for solutions, etc to justify why they have chosen that solution.

Try to avoid falling into that trap. In design thinking terms, stage 3 starts as a "divergent" process. For each metric you care about, you want identify everything that could lead to changes in that metric and then to think about ways to impact factors that influence it. This will provide a shortlist of candidates to consider in stage 4.

Let me clarify one thing. While RROI can be used as a sales pitch for a CFO, that is not its primary purpose. The term originates in marketing where people have to try and choose the most effective way to split an advertising budget, where there will never be a 1:1 link between "this ad appeared on TV" and "this person appeared in my store and bought my product". In your case, it is about adopting a systematic approach to evaluating your sales "system" and identifying and exploiting points of leverage for change where you have to pick between options.

I emphasise this point because even if you had infinite resources and staff within your team, KM interventions are inherently limited in two ways:

  • your ability to partition a system and run multiple interventions in parallel with minimal risk (ie safe-fail probing)
  • the human factors of implementing change, including the risk of change fatigue if you try to do too much, too soon

So even if we could sit down and identify 20 ways to tweak the sales and customer retention pipeline, you're probably going to have to limit yourself to 3-4 max and possibly only 1 or 2. RROI allows you to do a cross-comparison of the pros and cons of each in a systematic way and prioritise which you implement first (to be clear, you may well go back and do #3 and #4 after bedding down #1 and #2 on your list, but this helps to keep focus).

To keep working the problem, you ask how you could identify KM approaches. I suggest we look at increased customer retention as our proximate goal. We can use the problem solving pattern to think about where our weaknesses may lie:

For example:

  • Alternative solutions: Do you know the main reasons why customers are stopping using your product? Can we influence the behaviours that lead to that decision?
  • Error elimination: Have you got a hypothesis on how to address the observed behaviors? Can we test that?
  • Acquire: How effective is our data gathering process? Is it statistically valid? Could we change when or how the data is gathered?
  • Analyse:  What sources of information could we interrogate to learn more about what's going on? Are there alternative analysis techniques we haven't tried yet?
  • Act: Can we identify which customers are likely to quit using your product and act to intercept that first? If we could, what would that look like?
  • Monitor: Can we validate the relationship between applied retention incentives (eg temporary discount to monthly fees) and observed behaviour? Does that help us tell our customer support team which to offer and when?

Answering these questions will help us hone in on the KM initiatives that are likely to yield results.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 21/05/2021 12:22 am, Jay Kreshel wrote:

Thank you @Stephen Bounds. I appreciate the article and thoughts. I will review it further and give it a go.  Per stage 3 or the RROI (Identify proximate goals and options to target them), you elude to "brainstorming ways to 'shift the needle'. Do you mean identify different KM Approaches? Do you have favorites that provide visible wins in a short period of time? Ones that would solidify executive and participant support?

And then at a higher level... What will having the RROI get me? I can see that it would get me good favor with the CFO, showing that I am calculating value. I can see how it would help me focus on perhaps only ONE of the metrics, as I prioritize my efforts. Are there other wins that I am missing?

I want to just move on and start building stuff, but I realize that there are MANY middle steps that I need to do. This feels like one that would be valuable to me, but I need clarity on how it will help.

Jay.



On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:54 PM Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Jay,

Sounds like you have a perfect case for undertaking a RROI (relative return on investment) evaluation.

From what you have said, you've already identified three key metrics to target, each of which is a clear proxy for an ultimate business goal:

  • Increased customer retention (proxy metric for increased revenue)
  • Higher sales conversion rate (proxy metric for increased revenue)
  • Decreased onboarding time for sales team (proxy metric for decreased cost of sales)

To complete an RROI evaluation, the basic stages are:

  1. Identify ultimate goals and create a method for valuing goal outcomes. This can be skipped, since it looks like you have a direct revenue goal. Some organisations (eg governments) need to assign a nominal dollar value another way, perhaps by looking at calculating lost client productivity.
  2. Identify proximate goals and options to target them. You have already identified the proximate goals, so the next step is to brainstorm a range of ways to "shift the needle".
  3. Model impact of options on proximate goals. In other words, what rate of change in proximate goals are you targeting and how much would it cost to implement the option you've identified?
  4. Model change in ultimate goals based on change in proximate goals. For example, if your average retained customer pays $1000 / month, a 1% increase in retention on 1000 new customers annually is worth $120,000 a year.
  5. Compare benefits to costs to find the RROI of each initiative. This is simply dividing the benefit achieved by the cost, similar to a conventional cost-benefit analysis. Use this rank to recommend the highest benefit:cost ratio first!

There's a fully worked example on page 5 of my KM4Dev paper about RROI, which is freely available online.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 20/05/2021 11:46 am, Jay Kreshel wrote:
Thanks for the reply. My boss EVP in Customer Success works on the executive staff. His discussions with the head of Marketing and Head of Sales. Their objectives are mostly around: 
  • Decreasing the amount of time our customers take to get value out of the application. 

  • Minimizing the misunderstandings for the sales team

  • Increasing customer retention. If we can get the Customer Success team to know all of the use cases around the products, they can share the whole value around the solution, thus increasing retention.

  • Increasing the ramp time for sales, CS. We will increase the pace of hiring and will need to help them to know about our product & industry in as a short period of time as possible.


We have been working for the past few months on new product releases and enablement for our customer-facing teams. We have technology, software, processes, & people that we have used to "appropriately" spread knowledge to the audiences, But, to your point, we have not been targeted in our approach. And we have not picked that key "Pain Point" that we should start with. 

Any thoughts as to which would be the highest reward with ease of implementation? to get that Bang for our early buck?

Jay. 

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:15 PM Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:

Who’s asking you to do it? Depending on where it’s coming from, it could reduce the emphasis placed on developing a complete value proposition for exec staff, at least in terms of a heavily quantifiable one. 

As for your approach, I’d start by trying to understand where the biggest gaps are that KM-type approaches might be able to bridge. Where are places where there is the most variance in performance among people doing similar types of work? Which processes have high variance of outcome? Which processes leverage the most amount of resource, either in terms of inputs or outcomes? 

By understanding this a bit more you’ll be in a good place to identify potential pain points that KM can address, and where the bang for KM buck is the greatest. 

If you’d like to read more about his type of approach check out this chapter I wrote on KM Lessons Learned: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4goA-zLqqvBZWFmNGVjZWQtZTRlMi00ZWMzLWIzNTUtNTBjZjkzMzM0Y2Y4/view?usp=drivesdk

(PS - after 20 years as a KM practitioner I retired and now work with tech startups in the Bay Area through an accelerator and via referrals). 

Good luck.
--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: Here we go again? Searchable video. #knowledge-transfer #search #video

Murray Jennex
 

I remember that Oklahoma State developed a searchable video system for the army on doing IED identification and disarming.  They used the concept of knowledge nugget to keep the videos short (5-15 minutes) so that you didn't have to search through the video much to find what you need....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Thu, May 20, 2021 5:03 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Here we go again? Searchable video.

Interesting, Stephen. I wasn’t thinking about from the standpoint of meetings and zoom calls - but that in itself presents another interesting use case. And there sure are a lot of calls recorded taking up space on servers that I bet are never accessed again. 
What I was imagining was a library of “how to” videos, perhaps for field workers for example. So you’re out there repairing a piece of equipment in a chip fab, let’s say, and you video the repair, which is uploaded to a searchable video repository based on the make and model of the equipment, the type of repair, etc. The next time someone needs to fix that problem on that same type of equipment, they can “look over your shoulder” via the video and learn how to do it, saving time as well as expense of screw ups. Of course, someone would have to vet the videos and determine which ones were using the approved procedure and which ones weren’t. 
Something like that, I would think, would be workable. The challenge has always been, as you say, finding the bit at 42:55 that is relevant to the specific question someone in the field has - figuring out which video it’s in is hard enough; then navigating quickly to the right bit - next to impossible thus far.  
--
-Tom
--
Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: Here we go again? Searchable video. #knowledge-transfer #search #video

 

Interesting, Stephen. I wasn’t thinking about from the standpoint of meetings and zoom calls - but that in itself presents another interesting use case. And there sure are a lot of calls recorded taking up space on servers that I bet are never accessed again. 

What I was imagining was a library of “how to” videos, perhaps for field workers for example. So you’re out there repairing a piece of equipment in a chip fab, let’s say, and you video the repair, which is uploaded to a searchable video repository based on the make and model of the equipment, the type of repair, etc. The next time someone needs to fix that problem on that same type of equipment, they can “look over your shoulder” via the video and learn how to do it, saving time as well as expense of screw ups. Of course, someone would have to vet the videos and determine which ones were using the approved procedure and which ones weren’t. 

Something like that, I would think, would be workable. The challenge has always been, as you say, finding the bit at 42:55 that is relevant to the specific question someone in the field has - figuring out which video it’s in is hard enough; then navigating quickly to the right bit - next to impossible thus far.  
--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: Here we go again? Searchable video. #knowledge-transfer #search #video

Stephen Bounds
 

Nice! I hadn't heard of either of those tools before, I'll check them out.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 21/05/2021 9:00 am, Jay Kreshel wrote:

@stephen we use Gong pretty effectively for this purpose. Or does a pretty good job of transcribing and assigning names. It brings forth the calls to action and other key AI driven data. We also tried Avoma at one point. 

Jay. 




On May 20, 2021, at 3:53 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:



Interesting Tom,

I actually think it is still likely to be a failure from an enterprise point of view, because if you were to capture the majority of meetings you are likely to get lots of:

  • irrelevant discussion
  • tasking ("so we've agreed that X will do Y and come back by Z")
  • acronyms and implied knowledge about past events

Additionally:

  • meeting contexts will look pretty identical (either a non-descript meeting table or Zoom grid) and
  • emotions tend to be pretty guarded
So I feel the pickings of the AI in this context will be slim. On the other hand, I'm sure the system will be a boon for the stock video and content creator market, since if you're looking for a quick way to find (context free) "cat runs into chair while chasing toy mouse" videos, it will have you covered 😁

What would be much more interesting to me is a system that fully and accurately transcribes videos, including assigning names to speakers and descriptions of video actions on screen. That's because the biggest drawback of videos is that you have to watch the damn things. If you could instead skim through text to find the bit at 42:55 where you show me exactly how to safely clear a jammed lathe, that would be a valuable knowledge tool.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 21/05/2021 2:01 am, Curtis A. Conley wrote:
Thanks for sharing. Seems like a natural evolution of video-conferencing, given where it's at today. Many of the standard VC/streaming apps have built in auto-captioning and transcription capabilities, and if you bundle that in with all of the other asynchronous tools we're using to message and share knowledge, that could lead to a lot of interesting applications in the KM space.

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:33 AM Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:
Back in the early days of KM, big 4 consulting firms (I think there were six back then) saw the potential of KM and started experimenting with various tools and approaches. And it made sense for them to get onboard early: their assets were purely knowledge-based and went down the elevator every night. 
 
Back in 1989, Andersen Consulting hired AI guru Roger Schank and gave him $30million to play with and continue his research (he was at Stanford) hoping for some breakthroughs they could apply to their business. 

One KM-related project he worked on involved conducting and videoing knowledge elicitation interviews with experts. The thought was that if we could simply interview people and video it all, it would capture knowledge in a way that could be then inventoried, tagged and searched for future retrieval and re-use. I don’t know how much he spent on it, but word was it was in the millions. 
 
In any case, that didn’t work. When I learned about this effort I was at IBM, and I knew it wouldn’t work. We didn’t have the tools to cope with vast amounts of unstructured data, even when it was in text format, much less video format. 
 
But maybe now that is about to change. Some MIT alums are building a startup called Netra around an AI engine that is supposed to be able to parse video content and categorize it automagically. Might be a good one to watch. Who knows? Maybe Schank will be vindicated after all, and video knowledge elicitations will become a thing again. 
Now MIT alumnus-founded Netra is using artificial intelligence to improve video analysis at scale. The company’s system can identify activities, objects, emotions, locations, and more to organize and provide context to videos in new ways.

-- 
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: Here we go again? Searchable video. #knowledge-transfer #search #video

Jay Kreshel
 

@stephen we use Gong pretty effectively for this purpose. Or does a pretty good job of transcribing and assigning names. It brings forth the calls to action and other key AI driven data. We also tried Avoma at one point. 

Jay. 




On May 20, 2021, at 3:53 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:



Interesting Tom,

I actually think it is still likely to be a failure from an enterprise point of view, because if you were to capture the majority of meetings you are likely to get lots of:

  • irrelevant discussion
  • tasking ("so we've agreed that X will do Y and come back by Z")
  • acronyms and implied knowledge about past events

Additionally:

  • meeting contexts will look pretty identical (either a non-descript meeting table or Zoom grid) and
  • emotions tend to be pretty guarded
So I feel the pickings of the AI in this context will be slim. On the other hand, I'm sure the system will be a boon for the stock video and content creator market, since if you're looking for a quick way to find (context free) "cat runs into chair while chasing toy mouse" videos, it will have you covered 😁

What would be much more interesting to me is a system that fully and accurately transcribes videos, including assigning names to speakers and descriptions of video actions on screen. That's because the biggest drawback of videos is that you have to watch the damn things. If you could instead skim through text to find the bit at 42:55 where you show me exactly how to safely clear a jammed lathe, that would be a valuable knowledge tool.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 21/05/2021 2:01 am, Curtis A. Conley wrote:
Thanks for sharing. Seems like a natural evolution of video-conferencing, given where it's at today. Many of the standard VC/streaming apps have built in auto-captioning and transcription capabilities, and if you bundle that in with all of the other asynchronous tools we're using to message and share knowledge, that could lead to a lot of interesting applications in the KM space.

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:33 AM Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:
Back in the early days of KM, big 4 consulting firms (I think there were six back then) saw the potential of KM and started experimenting with various tools and approaches. And it made sense for them to get onboard early: their assets were purely knowledge-based and went down the elevator every night. 
 
Back in 1989, Andersen Consulting hired AI guru Roger Schank and gave him $30million to play with and continue his research (he was at Stanford) hoping for some breakthroughs they could apply to their business. 

One KM-related project he worked on involved conducting and videoing knowledge elicitation interviews with experts. The thought was that if we could simply interview people and video it all, it would capture knowledge in a way that could be then inventoried, tagged and searched for future retrieval and re-use. I don’t know how much he spent on it, but word was it was in the millions. 
 
In any case, that didn’t work. When I learned about this effort I was at IBM, and I knew it wouldn’t work. We didn’t have the tools to cope with vast amounts of unstructured data, even when it was in text format, much less video format. 
 
But maybe now that is about to change. Some MIT alums are building a startup called Netra around an AI engine that is supposed to be able to parse video content and categorize it automagically. Might be a good one to watch. Who knows? Maybe Schank will be vindicated after all, and video knowledge elicitations will become a thing again. 
Now MIT alumnus-founded Netra is using artificial intelligence to improve video analysis at scale. The company’s system can identify activities, objects, emotions, locations, and more to organize and provide context to videos in new ways.

-- 
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: Here we go again? Searchable video. #knowledge-transfer #search #video

Stephen Bounds
 

Interesting Tom,

I actually think it is still likely to be a failure from an enterprise point of view, because if you were to capture the majority of meetings you are likely to get lots of:

  • irrelevant discussion
  • tasking ("so we've agreed that X will do Y and come back by Z")
  • acronyms and implied knowledge about past events

Additionally:

  • meeting contexts will look pretty identical (either a non-descript meeting table or Zoom grid) and
  • emotions tend to be pretty guarded
So I feel the pickings of the AI in this context will be slim. On the other hand, I'm sure the system will be a boon for the stock video and content creator market, since if you're looking for a quick way to find (context free) "cat runs into chair while chasing toy mouse" videos, it will have you covered 😁

What would be much more interesting to me is a system that fully and accurately transcribes videos, including assigning names to speakers and descriptions of video actions on screen. That's because the biggest drawback of videos is that you have to watch the damn things. If you could instead skim through text to find the bit at 42:55 where you show me exactly how to safely clear a jammed lathe, that would be a valuable knowledge tool.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 21/05/2021 2:01 am, Curtis A. Conley wrote:

Thanks for sharing. Seems like a natural evolution of video-conferencing, given where it's at today. Many of the standard VC/streaming apps have built in auto-captioning and transcription capabilities, and if you bundle that in with all of the other asynchronous tools we're using to message and share knowledge, that could lead to a lot of interesting applications in the KM space.

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:33 AM Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:
Back in the early days of KM, big 4 consulting firms (I think there were six back then) saw the potential of KM and started experimenting with various tools and approaches. And it made sense for them to get onboard early: their assets were purely knowledge-based and went down the elevator every night. 
 
Back in 1989, Andersen Consulting hired AI guru Roger Schank and gave him $30million to play with and continue his research (he was at Stanford) hoping for some breakthroughs they could apply to their business. 

One KM-related project he worked on involved conducting and videoing knowledge elicitation interviews with experts. The thought was that if we could simply interview people and video it all, it would capture knowledge in a way that could be then inventoried, tagged and searched for future retrieval and re-use. I don’t know how much he spent on it, but word was it was in the millions. 
 
In any case, that didn’t work. When I learned about this effort I was at IBM, and I knew it wouldn’t work. We didn’t have the tools to cope with vast amounts of unstructured data, even when it was in text format, much less video format. 
 
But maybe now that is about to change. Some MIT alums are building a startup called Netra around an AI engine that is supposed to be able to parse video content and categorize it automagically. Might be a good one to watch. Who knows? Maybe Schank will be vindicated after all, and video knowledge elicitations will become a thing again. 
Now MIT alumnus-founded Netra is using artificial intelligence to improve video analysis at scale. The company’s system can identify activities, objects, emotions, locations, and more to organize and provide context to videos in new ways.

-- 
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: Guidance for building KM in Hi-tech startup #startup

Jan Hutter
 

@Patrick: you ask about usage of Wardley maps in KM. I personally don't have any experience with that approach nor did I watch any of those videos myself but there is a whole Youtube Channel dedicated to Wardley mapping here. One particular video is about Wardley Mapping and DDD (Domain-Driven Design). While DDD is an approach to develop domain-heavy software systems, it has a lot of overlap with challenges in the knowledge management discipline.

Jan


On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:26 AM Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:
Has anyone here used Wardley maps in this kind of KM context? I suspect they would be useful in zeroing in on critical KM capabilities in relation to product and service deliverables. And the technique was originally developed in the context of startups/ high tech companies.

The challenge in this kind of situation is lack of deep understanding of how KM ecosystems work among the key stakeholders and so they might end up identifying KM initiatives that look like they might be useful in principle, but end up feeling like housekeeping measures and eventually run out of supportive steam. Wardley maps are meant to help teams dig into and zero in on critical capabilities in the value chain. I suspect the technique would be useful but haven’t seen explicit examples in a KM context. Anyone?


P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 20 May 2021, at 2:53 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Jay,

Sounds like you have a perfect case for undertaking a RROI (relative return on investment) evaluation.

From what you have said, you've already identified three key metrics to target, each of which is a clear proxy for an ultimate business goal:

  • Increased customer retention (proxy metric for increased revenue)
  • Higher sales conversion rate (proxy metric for increased revenue)
  • Decreased onboarding time for sales team (proxy metric for decreased cost of sales)

To complete an RROI evaluation, the basic stages are:

  1. Identify ultimate goals and create a method for valuing goal outcomes. This can be skipped, since it looks like you have a direct revenue goal. Some organisations (eg governments) need to assign a nominal dollar value another way, perhaps by looking at calculating lost client productivity.
  2. Identify proximate goals and options to target them. You have already identified the proximate goals, so the next step is to brainstorm a range of ways to "shift the needle".
  3. Model impact of options on proximate goals. In other words, what rate of change in proximate goals are you targeting and how much would it cost to implement the option you've identified?
  4. Model change in ultimate goals based on change in proximate goals. For example, if your average retained customer pays $1000 / month, a 1% increase in retention on 1000 new customers annually is worth $120,000 a year.
  5. Compare benefits to costs to find the RROI of each initiative. This is simply dividing the benefit achieved by the cost, similar to a conventional cost-benefit analysis. Use this rank to recommend the highest benefit:cost ratio first!

There's a fully worked example on page 5 of my KM4Dev paper about RROI, which is freely available online.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 20/05/2021 11:46 am, Jay Kreshel wrote:
Thanks for the reply. My boss EVP in Customer Success works on the executive staff. His discussions with the head of Marketing and Head of Sales. Their objectives are mostly around: 
  • Decreasing the amount of time our customers take to get value out of the application. 

  • Minimizing the misunderstandings for the sales team
  • Increasing customer retention. If we can get the Customer Success team to know all of the use cases around the products, they can share the whole value around the solution, thus increasing retention.
  • Increasing the ramp time for sales, CS. We will increase the pace of hiring and will need to help them to know about our product & industry in as a short period of time as possible.

We have been working for the past few months on new product releases and enablement for our customer-facing teams. We have technology, software, processes, & people that we have used to "appropriately" spread knowledge to the audiences, But, to your point, we have not been targeted in our approach. And we have not picked that key "Pain Point" that we should start with. 

Any thoughts as to which would be the highest reward with ease of implementation? to get that Bang for our early buck?

Jay. 

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:15 PM Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:

Who’s asking you to do it? Depending on where it’s coming from, it could reduce the emphasis placed on developing a complete value proposition for exec staff, at least in terms of a heavily quantifiable one. 

As for your approach, I’d start by trying to understand where the biggest gaps are that KM-type approaches might be able to bridge. Where are places where there is the most variance in performance among people doing similar types of work? Which processes have high variance of outcome? Which processes leverage the most amount of resource, either in terms of inputs or outcomes? 

By understanding this a bit more you’ll be in a good place to identify potential pain points that KM can address, and where the bang for KM buck is the greatest. 

If you’d like to read more about his type of approach check out this chapter I wrote on KM Lessons Learned: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4goA-zLqqvBZWFmNGVjZWQtZTRlMi00ZWMzLWIzNTUtNTBjZjkzMzM0Y2Y4/view?usp=drivesdk

(PS - after 20 years as a KM practitioner I retired and now work with tech startups in the Bay Area through an accelerator and via referrals). 

Good luck.
--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts



Knowledge Cafe on Working Out Loud - June 9th at 10am ET #WOL #knowledge-cafè

Dennis Pearce
 

As you know, back on May 7 some of us participated in a virtual discussion on "Working Out Loud" (WOL). As a reminder, you can find that recording here - https://lnkd.in/gUqzFWz

WOL is a rich and complex concept. It involves both working openly and narrating your work. It is both a mindset and an activity. Some people mistake it for sharing or collaborating, but it's not really either of those (see this post - https://lnkd.in/gN8Q2eK ) .

Please join us June 9 at 10am ET for this next discussion as we use Gurteen's Knowledge Cafe approach to explore the question "Is implementing WOL limited by the surrounding environment and culture, and if so, why?

As an effort to practice "work out loud", here's the planning document that a group of us put into this session:
http://bit.ly/WOLCPREP

All the details are here:
https://lnkd.in/g-MJx4y


Re: Here we go again? Searchable video. #knowledge-transfer #search #video

Curtis A. Conley
 

Thanks for sharing. Seems like a natural evolution of video-conferencing, given where it's at today. Many of the standard VC/streaming apps have built in auto-captioning and transcription capabilities, and if you bundle that in with all of the other asynchronous tools we're using to message and share knowledge, that could lead to a lot of interesting applications in the KM space.

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:33 AM Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:
Back in the early days of KM, big 4 consulting firms (I think there were six back then) saw the potential of KM and started experimenting with various tools and approaches. And it made sense for them to get onboard early: their assets were purely knowledge-based and went down the elevator every night. 
 
Back in 1989, Andersen Consulting hired AI guru Roger Schank and gave him $30million to play with and continue his research (he was at Stanford) hoping for some breakthroughs they could apply to their business. 

One KM-related project he worked on involved conducting and videoing knowledge elicitation interviews with experts. The thought was that if we could simply interview people and video it all, it would capture knowledge in a way that could be then inventoried, tagged and searched for future retrieval and re-use. I don’t know how much he spent on it, but word was it was in the millions. 
 
In any case, that didn’t work. When I learned about this effort I was at IBM, and I knew it wouldn’t work. We didn’t have the tools to cope with vast amounts of unstructured data, even when it was in text format, much less video format. 
 
But maybe now that is about to change. Some MIT alums are building a startup called Netra around an AI engine that is supposed to be able to parse video content and categorize it automagically. Might be a good one to watch. Who knows? Maybe Schank will be vindicated after all, and video knowledge elicitations will become a thing again. 
Now MIT alumnus-founded Netra is using artificial intelligence to improve video analysis at scale. The company’s system can identify activities, objects, emotions, locations, and more to organize and provide context to videos in new ways.

-- 
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Here we go again? Searchable video. #knowledge-transfer #search #video

 

Back in the early days of KM, big 4 consulting firms (I think there were six back then) saw the potential of KM and started experimenting with various tools and approaches. And it made sense for them to get onboard early: their assets were purely knowledge-based and went down the elevator every night. 
 
Back in 1989, Andersen Consulting hired AI guru Roger Schank and gave him $30million to play with and continue his research (he was at Stanford) hoping for some breakthroughs they could apply to their business. 

One KM-related project he worked on involved conducting and videoing knowledge elicitation interviews with experts. The thought was that if we could simply interview people and video it all, it would capture knowledge in a way that could be then inventoried, tagged and searched for future retrieval and re-use. I don’t know how much he spent on it, but word was it was in the millions. 
 
In any case, that didn’t work. When I learned about this effort I was at IBM, and I knew it wouldn’t work. We didn’t have the tools to cope with vast amounts of unstructured data, even when it was in text format, much less video format. 
 
But maybe now that is about to change. Some MIT alums are building a startup called Netra around an AI engine that is supposed to be able to parse video content and categorize it automagically. Might be a good one to watch. Who knows? Maybe Schank will be vindicated after all, and video knowledge elicitations will become a thing again. 
Now MIT alumnus-founded Netra is using artificial intelligence to improve video analysis at scale. The company’s system can identify activities, objects, emotions, locations, and more to organize and provide context to videos in new ways.

-- 
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: Guidance for building KM in Hi-tech startup #startup

Jay Kreshel
 

Thanks, @Tim Powell for the response. Really appreciate it. 

I completely agree with oy on the "Why before the What". I tend to try to move too quickly and sometimes forgo that valuable information. And then, it bites me in the butt after the fact. 

For both you and @Stephen Bounds, as I continue to read your guidance... I am not sure that ROI is the critical piece here. The ASK has been made by the executive staff. They came TO ME with the problem to solve. Yes, I still need to represent it, but I do not think that it becomes the pivotal point. I am not sure what is that Pivotal / Critical point, but I don't think that it will be the ROI. (And yes I do now realize that I am going against what my original ask was about).

Or am I UNDER valuing its impact?

Jay.

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 2:54 AM Tim Powell <tim.powell@...> wrote:

Hi Jay,

 

I would say that in general this is a good plan – and that you are also getting sound advice from others on this list, who are among the best and brightest in the knowledge field.

 

I’m not sure your list is intended to be in priority order, but if so, I’d put 7 (business case) where 2 is now.  You need to address the WHY before the WHAT.  If you understand the knowledge value proposition from the top down, you’ll be way ahead of the many organizations who try to figure this out after the fact. 

 

Also I would explicitly address enterprise strategies, objectives, and goals that knowledge will directly support and enhance – as Steven has described.  “What does it do for us?” is the most important question senior leadership will have – and you need to have thought it through thoroughly and convincingly.

 

Be sure you use the metrics senior leaders already use -- not ad hoc metrics peculiar to knowledge.  For example, basic net present value ROI, which they will “get.”  I attach a short article about this – and there’s much more in my book The Value of Knowledge.

 

There’s also lots of content on the two sites linked below that may be helpful to you.

 

Good luck, and thanks for bringing in this group to share your challenges.

 

Cheers,

 

Tim

 

TIM WOOD POWELL | President, The Knowledge Agency® | Author, The Value of Knowledge |

New York City, USA  |  TEL +1.212.243.1200 | 

SITE www.KnowledgeAgency.com | BLOG www.KnowledgeValueChain.com |

 

 

From: <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Kreshel <jkreshel@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 8:44 PM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: [SIKM] Guideace for building KM in Hi-tech startup

 

I have been asked to look into knowledge management for our company, a Hi-Tech start-up doing Artificial Intelligence for finance organizations. 
I have been reading up on KM over the past week... sifting through the massive amount of articles, posts, and books.
I have come up with a plan to conquer my quest:

1.       Work with the executives to understand the value proposition for the km program

2.       Create a knowledge map of assets across the company & people

3.       Determine & Document how knowledge should flow: Document how knowledge is created, captured, organized, reviewed, shared, and used.

4.       Get buy-in and budget for the program

5.       List the core program Objectives

6.       Become smarter on knowledge management tools and approaches

7.       Create a business case with KM approaches, roles, budget, metrics, etc.

8.       Execute on each KM approach / program

FIRST, is my approach a good one?

SECOND: Can anyone direct me to previously created Business Plans, Value Proposition Slides, etc., that I can use to communicate with my executive staff?

THIRD: What other smaller Tech companies (hopefully in the Silicon Valley ) can I reference to mirror my program after for a starting point.

Thanks again to Stan for the response to my LinkedIn Request.

Jay.


Re: Guidance for building KM in Hi-tech startup #startup

Jay Kreshel
 

Thank you @Stephen Bounds. I appreciate the article and thoughts. I will review it further and give it a go.  Per stage 3 or the RROI (Identify proximate goals and options to target them), you elude to "brainstorming ways to 'shift the needle'. Do you mean identify different KM Approaches? Do you have favorites that provide visible wins in a short period of time? Ones that would solidify executive and participant support?

And then at a higher level... What will having the RROI get me? I can see that it would get me good favor with the CFO, showing that I am calculating value. I can see how it would help me focus on perhaps only ONE of the metrics, as I prioritize my efforts. Are there other wins that I am missing?

I want to just move on and start building stuff, but I realize that there are MANY middle steps that I need to do. This feels like one that would be valuable to me, but I need clarity on how it will help.

Jay.



On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:54 PM Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Jay,

Sounds like you have a perfect case for undertaking a RROI (relative return on investment) evaluation.

From what you have said, you've already identified three key metrics to target, each of which is a clear proxy for an ultimate business goal:

  • Increased customer retention (proxy metric for increased revenue)
  • Higher sales conversion rate (proxy metric for increased revenue)
  • Decreased onboarding time for sales team (proxy metric for decreased cost of sales)

To complete an RROI evaluation, the basic stages are:

  1. Identify ultimate goals and create a method for valuing goal outcomes. This can be skipped, since it looks like you have a direct revenue goal. Some organisations (eg governments) need to assign a nominal dollar value another way, perhaps by looking at calculating lost client productivity.
  2. Identify proximate goals and options to target them. You have already identified the proximate goals, so the next step is to brainstorm a range of ways to "shift the needle".
  3. Model impact of options on proximate goals. In other words, what rate of change in proximate goals are you targeting and how much would it cost to implement the option you've identified?
  4. Model change in ultimate goals based on change in proximate goals. For example, if your average retained customer pays $1000 / month, a 1% increase in retention on 1000 new customers annually is worth $120,000 a year.
  5. Compare benefits to costs to find the RROI of each initiative. This is simply dividing the benefit achieved by the cost, similar to a conventional cost-benefit analysis. Use this rank to recommend the highest benefit:cost ratio first!

There's a fully worked example on page 5 of my KM4Dev paper about RROI, which is freely available online.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 20/05/2021 11:46 am, Jay Kreshel wrote:
Thanks for the reply. My boss EVP in Customer Success works on the executive staff. His discussions with the head of Marketing and Head of Sales. Their objectives are mostly around: 
  • Decreasing the amount of time our customers take to get value out of the application. 

  • Minimizing the misunderstandings for the sales team

  • Increasing customer retention. If we can get the Customer Success team to know all of the use cases around the products, they can share the whole value around the solution, thus increasing retention.

  • Increasing the ramp time for sales, CS. We will increase the pace of hiring and will need to help them to know about our product & industry in as a short period of time as possible.


We have been working for the past few months on new product releases and enablement for our customer-facing teams. We have technology, software, processes, & people that we have used to "appropriately" spread knowledge to the audiences, But, to your point, we have not been targeted in our approach. And we have not picked that key "Pain Point" that we should start with. 

Any thoughts as to which would be the highest reward with ease of implementation? to get that Bang for our early buck?

Jay. 

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:15 PM Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> wrote:

Who’s asking you to do it? Depending on where it’s coming from, it could reduce the emphasis placed on developing a complete value proposition for exec staff, at least in terms of a heavily quantifiable one. 

As for your approach, I’d start by trying to understand where the biggest gaps are that KM-type approaches might be able to bridge. Where are places where there is the most variance in performance among people doing similar types of work? Which processes have high variance of outcome? Which processes leverage the most amount of resource, either in terms of inputs or outcomes? 

By understanding this a bit more you’ll be in a good place to identify potential pain points that KM can address, and where the bang for KM buck is the greatest. 

If you’d like to read more about his type of approach check out this chapter I wrote on KM Lessons Learned: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4goA-zLqqvBZWFmNGVjZWQtZTRlMi00ZWMzLWIzNTUtNTBjZjkzMzM0Y2Y4/view?usp=drivesdk

(PS - after 20 years as a KM practitioner I retired and now work with tech startups in the Bay Area through an accelerator and via referrals). 

Good luck.
--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: Quick Summary of KM Scope? #strategy #vision #metrics

David Graffagna
 

Stephen,

As I have mentioned, we're pretty early in our journey so we don't yet have enough history or evidence to say if either our survey or liaison efforts are (or will be successful). Having said that, our survey is bi-annual and comprehensive (e.g., half a dozen focused questions and a couple on demographics). And, it's a directed effort … we send the survey to our broad audiences, give them a 10 days - 2 weeks to complete then close it and review the input.

On the liaison front, the intent is not to formally "track it" but rather to use those interchanges as a way to stay connected, anticipate new or enhanced needs, and to get out in front of any issues. Fortunately, our audiences have been receptive and we welcome them challenging us with "how can you add value to my area?" type questions. Obviously some areas (and some individuals) more easily see the value than other areas … it would worry me if that weren't true. 

Best,

David


Re: Guidance for building KM in Hi-tech startup #startup

Tim Powell
 

Hi Jay,

 

I would say that in general this is a good plan – and that you are also getting sound advice from others on this list, who are among the best and brightest in the knowledge field.

 

I’m not sure your list is intended to be in priority order, but if so, I’d put 7 (business case) where 2 is now.  You need to address the WHY before the WHAT.  If you understand the knowledge value proposition from the top down, you’ll be way ahead of the many organizations who try to figure this out after the fact. 

 

Also I would explicitly address enterprise strategies, objectives, and goals that knowledge will directly support and enhance – as Steven has described.  “What does it do for us?” is the most important question senior leadership will have – and you need to have thought it through thoroughly and convincingly.

 

Be sure you use the metrics senior leaders already use -- not ad hoc metrics peculiar to knowledge.  For example, basic net present value ROI, which they will “get.”  I attach a short article about this – and there’s much more in my book The Value of Knowledge.

 

There’s also lots of content on the two sites linked below that may be helpful to you.

 

Good luck, and thanks for bringing in this group to share your challenges.

 

Cheers,

 

Tim

 

TIM WOOD POWELL | President, The Knowledge Agency® | Author, The Value of Knowledge |

New York City, USA  |  TEL +1.212.243.1200 | 

SITE www.KnowledgeAgency.com | BLOG www.KnowledgeValueChain.com |

 

 

From: <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Jay Kreshel <jkreshel@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 8:44 PM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: [SIKM] Guideace for building KM in Hi-tech startup

 

I have been asked to look into knowledge management for our company, a Hi-Tech start-up doing Artificial Intelligence for finance organizations. 
I have been reading up on KM over the past week... sifting through the massive amount of articles, posts, and books.
I have come up with a plan to conquer my quest:

1.       Work with the executives to understand the value proposition for the km program

2.       Create a knowledge map of assets across the company & people

3.       Determine & Document how knowledge should flow: Document how knowledge is created, captured, organized, reviewed, shared, and used.

4.       Get buy-in and budget for the program

5.       List the core program Objectives

6.       Become smarter on knowledge management tools and approaches

7.       Create a business case with KM approaches, roles, budget, metrics, etc.

8.       Execute on each KM approach / program

FIRST, is my approach a good one?

SECOND: Can anyone direct me to previously created Business Plans, Value Proposition Slides, etc., that I can use to communicate with my executive staff?

THIRD: What other smaller Tech companies (hopefully in the Silicon Valley ) can I reference to mirror my program after for a starting point.

Thanks again to Stan for the response to my LinkedIn Request.

Jay.

661 - 680 of 9717