Date   

Re: Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts #mapping #taxonomy #content-management

Keith De La Rue
 

Jay -
 
Thanks for the summary - glad you found the chapter to be of use!
 
The technology we were using at the time only had a fairly basic text search function (Lotus Notes/Domino). As per the description in the chapter, we tried to keep the taxonomy as simple and audience-focused as possible to aid findability, but the search was heavily used. A more sophisticated search would have been better!
 
After I left the company, the library was migrated to SharePoint, but I don’t know if the search was improved with this move. 

(For anyone who missed the earlier post, the book chapter mentioned is available at: http://delarue.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/03KeithDeLaRue.pdf.)

Regards,
 
 - Keith.
--------------------------------------------------------
Keith De La Rue
AcKnowledge Consulting
...acting on knowledge, communication and learning
email: keith@...
phone: +61 418 51 7676
blog: http://acknowledgeconsulting.com/
--------------------------------------------------------


Re: New book: Beyond Collaboration Overload, by Rob Cross #SNA-ONA-VNA #WOL #workplace #books #collaboration

 

Hi,

I’ve been on a quest to find the most relevant models, theories, books or ideas on collaboration. I have explored and experienced the scientific research, academic and professional approaches on how to inaugurate a collaborative culture at work. To avoid the trap of subjectivity, I won’t cite explicitly the theories/ models however I’ll share my findings:

 

-       Employees will most probably disconnect and lose interest whenever they hear a presentation around collaboration/ Knowledge sharing/ communities of practice.

-       Employees consider that they’re already collaborating through conf. calls/ workshops/ multi-disciplinary projects/ cross-functional teams.

-       Employees put in the mix all types of collaborative technologies: Box, Yammer, Teams, SharePoint, Alfresco, Jive, Tableau… with a little of efforts to understand the differences.  

-       Collaboration terminologies and vocabularies are often outside of the employee’s linguistic field and perceived as jargon.

-       People leaders expect from their team members to get the job done indifferently of the way it’s done.

-       Success metrics are financial and outcome-related and rarely measure the degree of collaboration, shared or reused knowledge.

-       Beliefs, norms and attitudes towards collaboration are most often a cumulation of long-life events that rooted from early childhood, get amplified in school/ university and stamped with the first work experience. Changing one’s belief at mid-20s is a past-due educational challenge.

 

Recently, I moved from a prescriptive/ normative approach to a more pragmatic/ activist approach towards collaboration. I may summarize it in 3 steps:

 

-       Step 1: Understand and model the micro-collaboration through a business activity model. This will help me to get the interest and motivation of the working groups in their respective domains. It has helped them to re-learn about what they're doing.  


-       Step 2: Look for the best fit between the supporting technologies / applications and the collaborative requirements for the domain activities.


-       Step 3: Connect the domains and form the macro- collaboration landscape. Model the collaboration in the flow of the work. Simplify the interfaces.

 

The employee’s role is to help me understand their respective domains, and my role is to help them to connect with related domains.


Thank you
Rachad  


Re: New book: Beyond Collaboration Overload, by Rob Cross #SNA-ONA-VNA #WOL #workplace #books #collaboration

Gordon Vala-Webb
 

@Catharine: I agree the term "collaboration" often gets applied very broadly; and that other methodologies can help reduce the organizational friction (e.g. a well-implemented 'enterprise' search engine can stop a lot of "does anyone know . . ." type of "collaboration").

@Dan: " there are no exact, precise solutions to get to a perfect collaborative balance." I would agree; and would argue that this is because "collaboration" is requires the management of two polarities: Structure and Unstructure (or / and Centralization and Decentralization). Neither is 'right' nor 'wrong' - because there is no "perfect . . . balance." You need both - to some degree; the mix of the two changes depending on the circumstances and / or outcome you are seeking. For example, broad enterprise social networking tools (e.g. Yammer, Teams) can significantly benefit from adding structure such as managed vocabularies, having a file-naming convention, and post-facto community renaming / amalgamation.

As Dr. Barry Johnson - the originator of Polarity Maps said: " The objective of the Polarity Management perspective is to get the best of both opposites while avoiding the limits of each."


I hope that is helpful.

G


photo
Gordon Vala-Webb

 gvalawebb@...

Toronto, Ontario, Canada | www.BuildingSmarterOrganizations.com

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 10:17 AM Dan Ranta <danieleranta@...> wrote:
Catherine - I agree that Rob's work is very provocative.  I am working on a short gig with the U.N. and I posted Rob's video that Tom shared on a UN-wide KM Yammer Community.  The individual below in the screen shot (name blocked out) posed an interesting question.  I shared the post via email with Rob and he responded right away - see below.  

Catherine I agree with your points...it's fuzzy for sure and there are no exact, precise solutions to get to a perfect collaborative balance.  I often say that work is more of an art than a science and this is definitely the case with building a collaborative culture.  I really like Rob's point below about self identifying where collaborative behavior can improve on the left side of his loop (graphic in his video) and putting this into play on the right side.  Also, he makes the point where small adjustments can potentially yield large amounts of value.  Several strategies can assist individuals, groups, organizations to understand this and move from left to right.  That's what I hear Rob talking about most.  I plan to also order his book.  Dan

image.png    
image.png

On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 11:22 AM Catherine Shinners <catherineshinners@...> wrote:
Tom,
Thanks for the head's up on this book.   I think this may be a follow on and expansion of Rob's thoughts in this area - he and Reb Rebele and Adam Grant first wrote on their Collaboration Overload take in a Harvard Business Review article in late 2015.   I wrote extended comments and then crafted this extended blog piece a couple of years later - I thought they threw too much into a "collaboration" bucket. 

"It seemed to me that much of the challenges and issues they called out did not have much to do with collaboration, per se, but with poor interaction and knowledge management practices, irregular or vague governance and guidance, and haphazard project and team management processes. In my work with organizations and companies, it’s often these kinds of issues that impact productive collaboration."

I am eager to see how he may have expanded his thinking since this early HBR article. 

I will say this - I spent about 10 years working on projects in large high tech companies to move their entire workforce to digital and social collaboration tools and modalities.  There were several common stumbling blocks that underpinned what leads to and what Cross calls Collaboration Overload
  • senior management did not understand the networked-based power of the tools and capabilities and overload the new technologies without pulling back on earlier ones - email and meetings being the most egregious, but also antiquated push, not pull communication and connection practice
  • senior management did not partake of the experiences themselves - so did not viscerally appreciate the impact on their workforce, nor could they lead by example (see below a link to digital leadership presentation)
But as I note in the blog, there's also search and knowledge management gaps that drive "collaboration" overload.

It's a challenge to move traditional organizational thinking into a "networked" model, but I've tried to articulate in these three categories
  • Individuals need to cultivate their "Network Agency" and understand that they are the asset - and expand their identity in a proactive way across the organization as network - they can do that by "Working Out Loud" and activate their social, knowledge and reputational capital in various ways - robust profiles, participate in forums or communities of practice, blog about their growing experience.
  • Management needs to cultivate their own digital leadership but also integrate an understanding of network social structures in the organization - communities, knowledge networks, internal crowdsourcing for business problem solving - at a class I co-taught at the Columbia INKS program, we specifically addressed the management process of setting communities in motion and integrating the results back to the organization - and I know Dan Ranta did ground-breaking work at GE in this regard.
  • Everyone has to master "future of work skills" virtual collaboration (not just the tools, but knowing how to activate and enlarge the knowledge and exchanges - tagging, for instance), rapid sense-making organizational awareness, and learning agility aided via network practices
Might seem obvious, but it was always an uphill struggle in the projects/organizations I worked with.
It looks like Cross is really integrating strong network practice into organizational design thought.   Companies have made enormous investments in the technology but have left the practice to chance.  I am going to pre-order his book.


Something's on Overload - But It's Not Collaboration.
Topics on Digital Leadership




--
Daniel Ranta
Mobile:  603 384 3308


--
Gordon Vala-Webb
Building Smarter Organizations
How to lead your zombie organization back to life


Re: New book: Beyond Collaboration Overload, by Rob Cross #SNA-ONA-VNA #WOL #workplace #books #collaboration

Dan Ranta
 

Catherine - I agree that Rob's work is very provocative.  I am working on a short gig with the U.N. and I posted Rob's video that Tom shared on a UN-wide KM Yammer Community.  The individual below in the screen shot (name blocked out) posed an interesting question.  I shared the post via email with Rob and he responded right away - see below.  

Catherine I agree with your points...it's fuzzy for sure and there are no exact, precise solutions to get to a perfect collaborative balance.  I often say that work is more of an art than a science and this is definitely the case with building a collaborative culture.  I really like Rob's point below about self identifying where collaborative behavior can improve on the left side of his loop (graphic in his video) and putting this into play on the right side.  Also, he makes the point where small adjustments can potentially yield large amounts of value.  Several strategies can assist individuals, groups, organizations to understand this and move from left to right.  That's what I hear Rob talking about most.  I plan to also order his book.  Dan

image.png    
image.png

On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 11:22 AM Catherine Shinners <catherineshinners@...> wrote:
Tom,
Thanks for the head's up on this book.   I think this may be a follow on and expansion of Rob's thoughts in this area - he and Reb Rebele and Adam Grant first wrote on their Collaboration Overload take in a Harvard Business Review article in late 2015.   I wrote extended comments and then crafted this extended blog piece a couple of years later - I thought they threw too much into a "collaboration" bucket. 

"It seemed to me that much of the challenges and issues they called out did not have much to do with collaboration, per se, but with poor interaction and knowledge management practices, irregular or vague governance and guidance, and haphazard project and team management processes. In my work with organizations and companies, it’s often these kinds of issues that impact productive collaboration."

I am eager to see how he may have expanded his thinking since this early HBR article. 

I will say this - I spent about 10 years working on projects in large high tech companies to move their entire workforce to digital and social collaboration tools and modalities.  There were several common stumbling blocks that underpinned what leads to and what Cross calls Collaboration Overload
  • senior management did not understand the networked-based power of the tools and capabilities and overload the new technologies without pulling back on earlier ones - email and meetings being the most egregious, but also antiquated push, not pull communication and connection practice
  • senior management did not partake of the experiences themselves - so did not viscerally appreciate the impact on their workforce, nor could they lead by example (see below a link to digital leadership presentation)
But as I note in the blog, there's also search and knowledge management gaps that drive "collaboration" overload.

It's a challenge to move traditional organizational thinking into a "networked" model, but I've tried to articulate in these three categories
  • Individuals need to cultivate their "Network Agency" and understand that they are the asset - and expand their identity in a proactive way across the organization as network - they can do that by "Working Out Loud" and activate their social, knowledge and reputational capital in various ways - robust profiles, participate in forums or communities of practice, blog about their growing experience.
  • Management needs to cultivate their own digital leadership but also integrate an understanding of network social structures in the organization - communities, knowledge networks, internal crowdsourcing for business problem solving - at a class I co-taught at the Columbia INKS program, we specifically addressed the management process of setting communities in motion and integrating the results back to the organization - and I know Dan Ranta did ground-breaking work at GE in this regard.
  • Everyone has to master "future of work skills" virtual collaboration (not just the tools, but knowing how to activate and enlarge the knowledge and exchanges - tagging, for instance), rapid sense-making organizational awareness, and learning agility aided via network practices
Might seem obvious, but it was always an uphill struggle in the projects/organizations I worked with.
It looks like Cross is really integrating strong network practice into organizational design thought.   Companies have made enormous investments in the technology but have left the practice to chance.  I am going to pre-order his book.


Something's on Overload - But It's Not Collaboration.
Topics on Digital Leadership




--
Daniel Ranta
Mobile:  603 384 3308


Request for Participation; Survey on knowledge workers' competencies #expertise #survey #research #request

John Muz
 

Dear KMers

I am conducting an expert survey for a paper on knowledge workers' competencies. I am reaching out to you as experts in this domain and to get your opinions.

The survey is on the required competencies of knowledge workers in this knowledge economy and how they can be achieved.

Your responses to this survey will help us to examine the required competencies of Knowledge workers in the Knowledge economy. It will also help us to design a better research study that aims at creating an awareness of the required skills and competencies in a digital economy, and by showing ways in which they can be achieved. Hence, contributing to the existing body of knowledge on competencies development.

The survey is very brief and will only take about 15 minutes to complete. Please click the link below to go to the Questionnaire on Google forms :

Survey link https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSehyJzWJ5agSYUpPfMGSgKKmn7yptJUw_QZuklk6GwrOaxvqg/viewform?usp=sf_link


Your participation in the survey will be highly appreciated and all your responses will be kept confidential. No personally identifiable data will be associated with your responses to any reports of these data.


Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. 
I am accepting input until Sunday,13 June 2021 and also available for any further discussion on this.

Your feedback will be highly appreciated.


Sincerely,

John Muzam,

Gliwice, Poland

+48 729 533 482


Re: New book: Beyond Collaboration Overload, by Rob Cross #SNA-ONA-VNA #WOL #workplace #books #collaboration

 

Tom,
Thanks for the head's up on this book.   I think this may be a follow on and expansion of Rob's thoughts in this area - he and Reb Rebele and Adam Grant first wrote on their Collaboration Overload take in a Harvard Business Review article in late 2015.   I wrote extended comments and then crafted this extended blog piece a couple of years later - I thought they threw too much into a "collaboration" bucket. 

"It seemed to me that much of the challenges and issues they called out did not have much to do with collaboration, per se, but with poor interaction and knowledge management practices, irregular or vague governance and guidance, and haphazard project and team management processes. In my work with organizations and companies, it’s often these kinds of issues that impact productive collaboration."

I am eager to see how he may have expanded his thinking since this early HBR article. 

I will say this - I spent about 10 years working on projects in large high tech companies to move their entire workforce to digital and social collaboration tools and modalities.  There were several common stumbling blocks that underpinned what leads to and what Cross calls Collaboration Overload
  • senior management did not understand the networked-based power of the tools and capabilities and overload the new technologies without pulling back on earlier ones - email and meetings being the most egregious, but also antiquated push, not pull communication and connection practice
  • senior management did not partake of the experiences themselves - so did not viscerally appreciate the impact on their workforce, nor could they lead by example (see below a link to digital leadership presentation)
But as I note in the blog, there's also search and knowledge management gaps that drive "collaboration" overload.

It's a challenge to move traditional organizational thinking into a "networked" model, but I've tried to articulate in these three categories
  • Individuals need to cultivate their "Network Agency" and understand that they are the asset - and expand their identity in a proactive way across the organization as network - they can do that by "Working Out Loud" and activate their social, knowledge and reputational capital in various ways - robust profiles, participate in forums or communities of practice, blog about their growing experience.
  • Management needs to cultivate their own digital leadership but also integrate an understanding of network social structures in the organization - communities, knowledge networks, internal crowdsourcing for business problem solving - at a class I co-taught at the Columbia INKS program, we specifically addressed the management process of setting communities in motion and integrating the results back to the organization - and I know Dan Ranta did ground-breaking work at GE in this regard.
  • Everyone has to master "future of work skills" virtual collaboration (not just the tools, but knowing how to activate and enlarge the knowledge and exchanges - tagging, for instance), rapid sense-making organizational awareness, and learning agility aided via network practices
Might seem obvious, but it was always an uphill struggle in the projects/organizations I worked with.
It looks like Cross is really integrating strong network practice into organizational design thought.   Companies have made enormous investments in the technology but have left the practice to chance.  I am going to pre-order his book.


Something's on Overload - But It's Not Collaboration.
Topics on Digital Leadership



Re: Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts #mapping #taxonomy #content-management

Jay Kreshel
 

Keith. Thank you for your note and especially this article/chapter. I picked up several key and valuable lessons that I will be able to employ within my strategy. Specifically, I have identified these supplemental approaches that I can use:
  • Content Findability Tool to get to the content we need at the time we need it: Taxonomy, Search, Feed, Shareable
  • Product Development Approach that includes the delivery of initial training to customer-facing organizations

  • Existing content taxonomy review with potential to be simplified, signed off, and shared wide

  • Creation and adherence to a Content Review cycle to ensure content is fresh, updated, and accurately maintained

  • Content upload templates to ensure that content is standardized for upload and consumption: Overview, Author names, Dates of entry, tags, audiences

  • Push Knowledge Share solution where content is shared with audience via LMS or Intranet that is curated and shared

  • Regular Knowledge Assessments that check-in on the learning of the customer-facing audiences on a regular cadence

  • Consistent Knowledge sharing efforts with weekly internal webinars (delivered and captured), that are curated from community discussions


My still open questions include: What Findability / Search tools are you using to make this happen? 


Jay.


On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:41 PM Keith De La Rue <keith@...> wrote:
Jay - 

In response to your point 1 - we developed a process to manage content currency in my work at Telstra. While our content may have been in a different context to yours, some of our approach may be useful. We had an online content library (using Lotus Notes/Domino) containing telecommunications product information (on complex voice, data and other products and services). This was mostly written by product managers, with the primary audience being the business and government sales force. 

In this context, currency of the content was critical - giving out-of-date information to a customer could have severe legal and regulatory consequences. On the issue of expiry, we had an agreement between senior product and sales management that all entries in the library must be updated at least every 90 days. We developed workflow tools to manage this.

A key element was that every entry in the library (which may be a document, spreadsheet, presentation, audio or video file, or even a link or a text item) must include the name of its author. That author would then be responsible for the 90-day reviews. My team also managed the process - if an author had moved on, we would get the error message from the workflow and follow up with the relevant manager. We found that this element of ownership was critical for keeping content up to date.

Every entry also provided messaging for the audience - anyone could directly contact the responsible author with any questions or feedback.

I documented this process in a chapter in the book TIMAF Information Management Best Practices – Volume 1. This chapter is available on my website here: 

http://delarue.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/03KeithDeLaRue.pdf

-------------------------
Keith De La Rue
AcKnowledge Consulting
...acting on knowledge, communication and learning
email: keith@...
phone: +61 418 51 7676
blog: http://acknowledgeconsulting.com/

 


Re: Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts #mapping #taxonomy #content-management

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Tatiana,

I wasn't sure if it would be of broader interest to the community, so I didn't include it in my earlier post.

Yes, it's my own work. I created a pretty simplistic cost-assessment projection as described in the "algorithm" for each line of the chart. Happy to answer any questions that you or others have.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 28/05/2021 9:46 pm, Tata Gudilina wrote:

Hi Stephen,

I apologise for joining the conversation without introduction or invitation. However, I’m very interested in findings re document location methods efficiency on the chart that you shared. Is it part of your own research results? Could you please share any additional info on the source of info? I failed to google it on my own

Thank you in advance
Tatiana


On 28 May 2021, at 02:08, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:



Hi Jay,

Honestly, almost all full-text search engines are perfectly fine. Until you get to millions of documents there is minimal difference in performance and effectiveness.

Categorisation tends to be seen as a good option due to its high efficiency in locating information with medium numbers of documents, as illustrated by the chart below:

<knmnljjcecfmimek.png>

This makes some pretty basic assumptions about user behaviour and the crossover points in efficiency will change depending on those assumptions but the basic idea holds.

However, what this chart does not capture is the cost of applying the categorisation in the first place. The benefit of search is that it is literally "set and forget" - the cost of capturing thousands of additional documents is minimal compared to hand-tagging each. Thus people tend to overvalue categorisation and undervalue search. Applying metadata for the sole purpose of location only makes sense when dealing with a small number of documents with a relatively frequent and valuable amount of reuse.

(Note of caution: Don't forget whole-of-lifecycle governance. If you're going to end up with a pile of unowned documents in your system, it can be costly to identify people responsible for their later review. Ideally documents should be tagged with an identifiable group owner at point of upload if you need to delegate their subsequent management or disposal. Usernames are a poor substitute but better than nothing.)

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 26/05/2021 12:18 am, Jay Kreshel wrote:
Thanks, @Steven, I have been referred to Patrick Lambe's writings before. I will check it out...

If as you say my issue may not be tagged at all and an improved Search functionality is advisable... Can you please recommend one or a few to review? I keep hearing from everyone that KM is about the process and not technology, but it seems as if I am starting to run into a corner where it may be the solution.

Jay.


On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 6:06 AM Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Jay,

Dennis has pretty much nailed it.

On point 1, you need to consider: (a) the cost of leaving something 'wrong' up and (b) if something 'wrong' could still be useful. One option to consider is applying automatic warning headers on content that is at more than X days old to encourage people to look for newer content. This also encourages relevant content to be refreshed by stakeholders (even if people just click Edit => Save to update the modified date).

On point 2, assuming that the main purpose of labels is discovery, you could analyse the number of times a label is searched for to get a sense for which are resonating with your users and then trimming the excess. But first I think you need to understand why you're labelling content at all. Is it performing a function that search won't and if so, could you fix the problem with a better search engine? 😁

Patrick Lambe's book "Organising Knowledge: Taxonomies, Knowledge and Organisational Effectiveness" is a great way to learn about this stuff, BTW. Highly recommend.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 25/05/2021 9:33 pm, Dennis Thomas wrote:
My comments:  [DLT]

1.  This is a judgment call.  The retention period is relative to who uses the material and its time-value. 

2.  No idea.  The general rule is whatever works.  Every situation is different.  There is, however, a point of diminishing returns.  At some point, the process becomes too cumbersome and people will not use it.

3.  See attached diagram of a knowledge acquisition study that was completed for the US Government.  It’s goal was to define what knowledge existed within the Science & Technology labs.  The study used Controlled Vocabularies to insure accuracy.  It was determined that much of the research knowledge could not be understood by the Program Managers and it was therefore, not implemented in end-user projects.   For this reason, associating Acronyms, Synonyms, jargon with the Controlled Vocabularies was essential. People understand based on the language they already know and understand. 

Martha Nawrocki, our Master Knowledge Engineer modeled this project.  The Map was created by Dr. Richard L. Ballard, Principle Investigator

Good luck with your report.  Dennis 



On May 25, 2021 at 1:33:18 AM, Jay Kreshel (jkreshel@...) wrote:

I have begun a Knowledge Mapping exercise and have learned a couple of things about my data that I need help managing. 
  1. We have a lot of really good content. But, when we posted it to our Content Management Systems, we failed to document its post dates... AND, as we work through determining which content will help us engage our employees and customers at the right time. When it is time to add new content, what is the best practice on expiring content and when to remove it from the system?
  2. With our taxonomy of labels for tracking and tagging data, we have a list of 130 individual labels across 18 categories. Feels like a lot... What is the Best Practice for a reasonable count?
  3. I was also given guidance around a Controlled Vocabulary as an alternative. I believe that this would decrease the number of categories and categories. Does anyone have a case study that would help me determine which method to use?
Thanks in advance.

Jay.
(300 person start-up, Technology company.)


Re: Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts #mapping #taxonomy #content-management

Keith De La Rue
 

Jay - 

In response to your point 1 - we developed a process to manage content currency in my work at Telstra. While our content may have been in a different context to yours, some of our approach may be useful. We had an online content library (using Lotus Notes/Domino) containing telecommunications product information (on complex voice, data and other products and services). This was mostly written by product managers, with the primary audience being the business and government sales force. 

In this context, currency of the content was critical - giving out-of-date information to a customer could have severe legal and regulatory consequences. On the issue of expiry, we had an agreement between senior product and sales management that all entries in the library must be updated at least every 90 days. We developed workflow tools to manage this.

A key element was that every entry in the library (which may be a document, spreadsheet, presentation, audio or video file, or even a link or a text item) must include the name of its author. That author would then be responsible for the 90-day reviews. My team also managed the process - if an author had moved on, we would get the error message from the workflow and follow up with the relevant manager. We found that this element of ownership was critical for keeping content up to date.

Every entry also provided messaging for the audience - anyone could directly contact the responsible author with any questions or feedback.

I documented this process in a chapter in the book TIMAF Information Management Best Practices – Volume 1. This chapter is available on my website here: 

http://delarue.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/03KeithDeLaRue.pdf

-------------------------
Keith De La Rue
AcKnowledge Consulting
...acting on knowledge, communication and learning
email: keith@...
phone: +61 418 51 7676
blog: http://acknowledgeconsulting.com/

 


Re: Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts #mapping #taxonomy #content-management

Maria Svoisky Goldberg
 

My 2 cents:
1. In my last role we came up with a formula I collaboration with data scientists that looks at parameters such as last updated date,  negative feedback,  usage. We tweaked it a couple of times to assign the right weight to each parameter, and got to a point where we get a list of recommendations for review. This list is distributed among SMEs periodically  and they decide whether the articles need to be retired. 
We also reviewe the recommendations and aske data scientists to feed the recommendations back into the model and adjust it according to results. 

2. I don't think there is a best practice here. If your platform is complex and you have many products for example,  you can easily have a very big and  branchy taxonomy tree. 
I would work with the SMEs and end users of the taxonomy to validate the values and see if it resonates with them. 

Hope this helps!
Maria


On Tue, May 25, 2021, 4:34 AM Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:
My comments:  [DLT]

1.  This is a judgment call.  The retention period is relative to who uses the material and its time-value. 

2.  No idea.  The general rule is whatever works.  Every situation is different.  There is, however, a point of diminishing returns.  At some point, the process becomes too cumbersome and people will not use it.

3.  See attached diagram of a knowledge acquisition study that was completed for the US Government.  It’s goal was to define what knowledge existed within the Science & Technology labs.  The study used Controlled Vocabularies to insure accuracy.  It was determined that much of the research knowledge could not be understood by the Program Managers and it was therefore, not implemented in end-user projects.   For this reason, associating Acronyms, Synonyms, jargon with the Controlled Vocabularies was essential. People understand based on the language they already know and understand. 

Martha Nawrocki, our Master Knowledge Engineer modeled this project.  The Map was created by Dr. Richard L. Ballard, Principle Investigator

Good luck with your report.  Dennis 



On May 25, 2021 at 1:33:18 AM, Jay Kreshel (jkreshel@...) wrote:

I have begun a Knowledge Mapping exercise and have learned a couple of things about my data that I need help managing. 
  1. We have a lot of really good content. But, when we posted it to our Content Management Systems, we failed to document its post dates... AND, as we work through determining which content will help us engage our employees and customers at the right time. When it is time to add new content, what is the best practice on expiring content and when to remove it from the system?
  2. With our taxonomy of labels for tracking and tagging data, we have a list of 130 individual labels across 18 categories. Feels like a lot... What is the Best Practice for a reasonable count?
  3. I was also given guidance around a Controlled Vocabulary as an alternative. I believe that this would decrease the number of categories and categories. Does anyone have a case study that would help me determine which method to use?
Thanks in advance.

Jay.
(300 person start-up, Technology company.)


Re: Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts #mapping #taxonomy #content-management

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Jay,

Honestly, almost all full-text search engines are perfectly fine. Until you get to millions of documents there is minimal difference in performance and effectiveness.

Categorisation tends to be seen as a good option due to its high efficiency in locating information with medium numbers of documents, as illustrated by the chart below:

This makes some pretty basic assumptions about user behaviour and the crossover points in efficiency will change depending on those assumptions but the basic idea holds.

However, what this chart does not capture is the cost of applying the categorisation in the first place. The benefit of search is that it is literally "set and forget" - the cost of capturing thousands of additional documents is minimal compared to hand-tagging each. Thus people tend to overvalue categorisation and undervalue search. Applying metadata for the sole purpose of location only makes sense when dealing with a small number of documents with a relatively frequent and valuable amount of reuse.

(Note of caution: Don't forget whole-of-lifecycle governance. If you're going to end up with a pile of unowned documents in your system, it can be costly to identify people responsible for their later review. Ideally documents should be tagged with an identifiable group owner at point of upload if you need to delegate their subsequent management or disposal. Usernames are a poor substitute but better than nothing.)

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 26/05/2021 12:18 am, Jay Kreshel wrote:

Thanks, @Steven, I have been referred to Patrick Lambe's writings before. I will check it out...

If as you say my issue may not be tagged at all and an improved Search functionality is advisable... Can you please recommend one or a few to review? I keep hearing from everyone that KM is about the process and not technology, but it seems as if I am starting to run into a corner where it may be the solution.

Jay.


On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 6:06 AM Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Jay,

Dennis has pretty much nailed it.

On point 1, you need to consider: (a) the cost of leaving something 'wrong' up and (b) if something 'wrong' could still be useful. One option to consider is applying automatic warning headers on content that is at more than X days old to encourage people to look for newer content. This also encourages relevant content to be refreshed by stakeholders (even if people just click Edit => Save to update the modified date).

On point 2, assuming that the main purpose of labels is discovery, you could analyse the number of times a label is searched for to get a sense for which are resonating with your users and then trimming the excess. But first I think you need to understand why you're labelling content at all. Is it performing a function that search won't and if so, could you fix the problem with a better search engine? 😁

Patrick Lambe's book "Organising Knowledge: Taxonomies, Knowledge and Organisational Effectiveness" is a great way to learn about this stuff, BTW. Highly recommend.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 25/05/2021 9:33 pm, Dennis Thomas wrote:
My comments:  [DLT]

1.  This is a judgment call.  The retention period is relative to who uses the material and its time-value. 

2.  No idea.  The general rule is whatever works.  Every situation is different.  There is, however, a point of diminishing returns.  At some point, the process becomes too cumbersome and people will not use it.

3.  See attached diagram of a knowledge acquisition study that was completed for the US Government.  It’s goal was to define what knowledge existed within the Science & Technology labs.  The study used Controlled Vocabularies to insure accuracy.  It was determined that much of the research knowledge could not be understood by the Program Managers and it was therefore, not implemented in end-user projects.   For this reason, associating Acronyms, Synonyms, jargon with the Controlled Vocabularies was essential. People understand based on the language they already know and understand. 

Martha Nawrocki, our Master Knowledge Engineer modeled this project.  The Map was created by Dr. Richard L. Ballard, Principle Investigator

Good luck with your report.  Dennis 



On May 25, 2021 at 1:33:18 AM, Jay Kreshel (jkreshel@...) wrote:

I have begun a Knowledge Mapping exercise and have learned a couple of things about my data that I need help managing. 
  1. We have a lot of really good content. But, when we posted it to our Content Management Systems, we failed to document its post dates... AND, as we work through determining which content will help us engage our employees and customers at the right time. When it is time to add new content, what is the best practice on expiring content and when to remove it from the system?
  2. With our taxonomy of labels for tracking and tagging data, we have a list of 130 individual labels across 18 categories. Feels like a lot... What is the Best Practice for a reasonable count?
  3. I was also given guidance around a Controlled Vocabulary as an alternative. I believe that this would decrease the number of categories and categories. Does anyone have a case study that would help me determine which method to use?
Thanks in advance.

Jay.
(300 person start-up, Technology company.)


Re: Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts #mapping #taxonomy #content-management

 

Managing content in general requires overhead activity. Doing it well requires discipline and extra work that most knowledge workers balk at doing. Taxonomies are a PITA to establish and maintain and use beyond the top-level, except for engineering or R&D organizations, where universal terminology is industry-wide, and much easier to manage and implement. 

People know where the good stuff is. They know which stuff is still relevant, and which stuff is out of date or superseded. Domain experts generally are aware of the good stuff in their domain, so one way to organize content is to more deliberately identify and track experts and make it easier for people to find them. And perhaps offer help to them in terms of structuring the good stuff in a more organized, standardized way. Maybe hosted on a searchable platform/portal. 

OK. So there’s my KM heresy for the day. :-)
--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: How do you answer the question: What is knowledge management consulting? #humor #consulting #definition

 

Thanks for joining in Pavel!

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Pavel Kraus via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 08:38
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] How do you answer the question: What is knowledge management consulting?

 

Dear Bill,

to answer this question is the main purpose of our 3 Sphere Model. It helps us to discuss the profiling and positioning of KM consulting with clients.

If what the client originally had in mind concerned only information management, then he sees other options using the model and vice versa.

Our answer is that KM consulting is dealing with all the tools, methods and techniques alongside the spheres:
https://www.skmf.net/en/resources/3-sphere-model/

Glad to explain more if needed.

Kind regards,
Pavel


-- 
Dr. Pavel Kraus
President SKMF
SWISS KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT FORUM
www.skmf.net

 

Dear Colleagues

 

I was at an event last week and I asked a few colleagues this question.  The answers surprised me…so…I wanted to get your take on this question and its answer.  In other words, how do you describe KM consulting when you may be asked this question?

 

Much appreciate hearing your answers.

 

Best

 

Bill

 

 

  

 

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

 

 



 


Re: How do you answer the question: What is knowledge management consulting? #humor #consulting #definition

 

Dear Bill,

to answer this question is the main purpose of our 3 Sphere Model. It helps us to discuss the profiling and positioning of KM consulting with clients.

If what the client originally had in mind concerned only information management, then he sees other options using the model and vice versa.

Our answer is that KM consulting is dealing with all the tools, methods and techniques alongside the spheres:
https://www.skmf.net/en/resources/3-sphere-model/

Glad to explain more if needed.

Kind regards,
Pavel

-- 
Dr. Pavel Kraus
President SKMF
SWISS KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT FORUM
www.skmf.net
 

Dear Colleagues

 

I was at an event last week and I asked a few colleagues this question.  The answers surprised me…so…I wanted to get your take on this question and its answer.  In other words, how do you describe KM consulting when you may be asked this question?

 

Much appreciate hearing your answers.

 

Best

 

Bill

 

 

  

 

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

 

 



  


Re: Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts #mapping #taxonomy #content-management

Tim Powell
 

Good questions, Jay!  Our answers here will be somewhat generic, given the inevitable limitations of what you are able you tell us in a public forum such as this.  That said, here, in order, are my thoughts:

 

  1. All knowledge begins to age as soon as it’s converted into information in a CMS.  In a fast-moving industry such as yours, some information is obsolete within a matter of hours.  It’s key to have such content dated, so the user can make his/her own decision as to how relevant it is to his/her business need.  It’s also key to have content attributed, so the true knowledge – which is human-centric – can be accessed for currency and greater depth.  CMS content should be thought of as an index to the true knowledge base of the company.  Re purge cycles, you can usually judge from usage data whether information is still useful.
  2. The number of categories I think is not so important as the business relevance and accessibility of the information.  “The magic  number 7 +/- 2” is a good guidepost for busy and overloaded users.  If you get much beyond that, you’re stretching the cognitive boundaries of the human “machine.”  It’s key here to get input from your users/clients – who will know a lot more about their needs than we “experts” will. 
  3. Smaller companies (like yours) may have different needs than large, less dynamic enterprises.  You might find this article on metrics for venture-backed firms helpful:  https://growth.georgian.io/c/g7-the-seven-saas-me?x=gYRF2j&utm_campaign=May+2021+-+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=128740944&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--ri_P1-xywGAhQ0Wovh1rCXut10kmF5NGGjOjb0s0WElaFx53_1kLPa0nN0CqjK6uIZtZ0iQ5c_jxq-QGvHlZWMYDMr9j38smehMp_34hifKkx_3E&utm_content=128740703&utm_source=hs_email

 

Good luck, hope this helps you,

 

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: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 1:33 AM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: [SIKM] Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts

 

I have begun a Knowledge Mapping exercise and have learned a couple of things about my data that I need help managing. 

1.       We have a lot of really good content. But, when we posted it to our Content Management Systems, we failed to document its post dates... AND, as we work through determining which content will help us engage our employees and customers at the right time. When it is time to add new content, what is the best practice on expiring content and when to remove it from the system?

2.       With our taxonomy of labels for tracking and tagging data, we have a list of 130 individual labels across 18 categories. Feels like a lot... What is the Best Practice for a reasonable count?

3.       I was also given guidance around a Controlled Vocabulary as an alternative. I believe that this would decrease the number of categories and categories. Does anyone have a case study that would help me determine which method to use?

Thanks in advance.

Jay.
(300 person start-up, Technology company.)


Re: Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts #mapping #taxonomy #content-management

Jay Kreshel
 

Thanks, @Steven, I have been referred to Patrick Lambe's writings before. I will check it out...

If as you say my issue may not be tagged at all and an improved Search functionality is advisable... Can you please recommend one or a few to review? I keep hearing from everyone that KM is about the process and not technology, but it seems as if I am starting to run into a corner where it may be the solution.

Jay.


On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 6:06 AM Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Jay,

Dennis has pretty much nailed it.

On point 1, you need to consider: (a) the cost of leaving something 'wrong' up and (b) if something 'wrong' could still be useful. One option to consider is applying automatic warning headers on content that is at more than X days old to encourage people to look for newer content. This also encourages relevant content to be refreshed by stakeholders (even if people just click Edit => Save to update the modified date).

On point 2, assuming that the main purpose of labels is discovery, you could analyse the number of times a label is searched for to get a sense for which are resonating with your users and then trimming the excess. But first I think you need to understand why you're labelling content at all. Is it performing a function that search won't and if so, could you fix the problem with a better search engine? 😁

Patrick Lambe's book "Organising Knowledge: Taxonomies, Knowledge and Organisational Effectiveness" is a great way to learn about this stuff, BTW. Highly recommend.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 25/05/2021 9:33 pm, Dennis Thomas wrote:
My comments:  [DLT]

1.  This is a judgment call.  The retention period is relative to who uses the material and its time-value. 

2.  No idea.  The general rule is whatever works.  Every situation is different.  There is, however, a point of diminishing returns.  At some point, the process becomes too cumbersome and people will not use it.

3.  See attached diagram of a knowledge acquisition study that was completed for the US Government.  It’s goal was to define what knowledge existed within the Science & Technology labs.  The study used Controlled Vocabularies to insure accuracy.  It was determined that much of the research knowledge could not be understood by the Program Managers and it was therefore, not implemented in end-user projects.   For this reason, associating Acronyms, Synonyms, jargon with the Controlled Vocabularies was essential. People understand based on the language they already know and understand. 

Martha Nawrocki, our Master Knowledge Engineer modeled this project.  The Map was created by Dr. Richard L. Ballard, Principle Investigator

Good luck with your report.  Dennis 



On May 25, 2021 at 1:33:18 AM, Jay Kreshel (jkreshel@...) wrote:

I have begun a Knowledge Mapping exercise and have learned a couple of things about my data that I need help managing. 
  1. We have a lot of really good content. But, when we posted it to our Content Management Systems, we failed to document its post dates... AND, as we work through determining which content will help us engage our employees and customers at the right time. When it is time to add new content, what is the best practice on expiring content and when to remove it from the system?
  2. With our taxonomy of labels for tracking and tagging data, we have a list of 130 individual labels across 18 categories. Feels like a lot... What is the Best Practice for a reasonable count?
  3. I was also given guidance around a Controlled Vocabulary as an alternative. I believe that this would decrease the number of categories and categories. Does anyone have a case study that would help me determine which method to use?
Thanks in advance.

Jay.
(300 person start-up, Technology company.)


Re: Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts #mapping #taxonomy #content-management

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Jay,

Dennis has pretty much nailed it.

On point 1, you need to consider: (a) the cost of leaving something 'wrong' up and (b) if something 'wrong' could still be useful. One option to consider is applying automatic warning headers on content that is at more than X days old to encourage people to look for newer content. This also encourages relevant content to be refreshed by stakeholders (even if people just click Edit => Save to update the modified date).

On point 2, assuming that the main purpose of labels is discovery, you could analyse the number of times a label is searched for to get a sense for which are resonating with your users and then trimming the excess. But first I think you need to understand why you're labelling content at all. Is it performing a function that search won't and if so, could you fix the problem with a better search engine? 😁

Patrick Lambe's book "Organising Knowledge: Taxonomies, Knowledge and Organisational Effectiveness" is a great way to learn about this stuff, BTW. Highly recommend.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 25/05/2021 9:33 pm, Dennis Thomas wrote:

My comments:  [DLT]

1.  This is a judgment call.  The retention period is relative to who uses the material and its time-value. 

2.  No idea.  The general rule is whatever works.  Every situation is different.  There is, however, a point of diminishing returns.  At some point, the process becomes too cumbersome and people will not use it.

3.  See attached diagram of a knowledge acquisition study that was completed for the US Government.  It’s goal was to define what knowledge existed within the Science & Technology labs.  The study used Controlled Vocabularies to insure accuracy.  It was determined that much of the research knowledge could not be understood by the Program Managers and it was therefore, not implemented in end-user projects.   For this reason, associating Acronyms, Synonyms, jargon with the Controlled Vocabularies was essential. People understand based on the language they already know and understand. 

Martha Nawrocki, our Master Knowledge Engineer modeled this project.  The Map was created by Dr. Richard L. Ballard, Principle Investigator

Good luck with your report.  Dennis 



On May 25, 2021 at 1:33:18 AM, Jay Kreshel (jkreshel@...) wrote:

I have begun a Knowledge Mapping exercise and have learned a couple of things about my data that I need help managing. 
  1. We have a lot of really good content. But, when we posted it to our Content Management Systems, we failed to document its post dates... AND, as we work through determining which content will help us engage our employees and customers at the right time. When it is time to add new content, what is the best practice on expiring content and when to remove it from the system?
  2. With our taxonomy of labels for tracking and tagging data, we have a list of 130 individual labels across 18 categories. Feels like a lot... What is the Best Practice for a reasonable count?
  3. I was also given guidance around a Controlled Vocabulary as an alternative. I believe that this would decrease the number of categories and categories. Does anyone have a case study that would help me determine which method to use?
Thanks in advance.

Jay.
(300 person start-up, Technology company.)


Re: Knowledge Mapping: Expiring content & Taxonomy counts #mapping #taxonomy #content-management

Dennis Thomas
 

My comments:  [DLT]

1.  This is a judgment call.  The retention period is relative to who uses the material and its time-value. 

2.  No idea.  The general rule is whatever works.  Every situation is different.  There is, however, a point of diminishing returns.  At some point, the process becomes too cumbersome and people will not use it.

3.  See attached diagram of a knowledge acquisition study that was completed for the US Government.  It’s goal was to define what knowledge existed within the Science & Technology labs.  The study used Controlled Vocabularies to insure accuracy.  It was determined that much of the research knowledge could not be understood by the Program Managers and it was therefore, not implemented in end-user projects.   For this reason, associating Acronyms, Synonyms, jargon with the Controlled Vocabularies was essential. People understand based on the language they already know and understand. 

Martha Nawrocki, our Master Knowledge Engineer modeled this project.  The Map was created by Dr. Richard L. Ballard, Principle Investigator

Good luck with your report.  Dennis 



On May 25, 2021 at 1:33:18 AM, Jay Kreshel (jkreshel@...) wrote:

I have begun a Knowledge Mapping exercise and have learned a couple of things about my data that I need help managing. 
  1. We have a lot of really good content. But, when we posted it to our Content Management Systems, we failed to document its post dates... AND, as we work through determining which content will help us engage our employees and customers at the right time. When it is time to add new content, what is the best practice on expiring content and when to remove it from the system?
  2. With our taxonomy of labels for tracking and tagging data, we have a list of 130 individual labels across 18 categories. Feels like a lot... What is the Best Practice for a reasonable count?
  3. I was also given guidance around a Controlled Vocabulary as an alternative. I believe that this would decrease the number of categories and categories. Does anyone have a case study that would help me determine which method to use?
Thanks in advance.

Jay.
(300 person start-up, Technology company.)


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

Patrick Lambe
 

Stephen:

Your Para 2: Yes

Your Para 3: Got it, nice.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 25 May 2021, at 2:46 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,

Interesting. Generally though, startups are only able to disrupt a market because they either (a) take advantage of a foundational product or service that is newly commoditised and build an innovative capability on top of that or (b) offer the commoditisation or the product themselves. I think I understand what you're getting at though. If it is possible to outsource or commoditise a knowledge product, is may not be worth trying to curate it in-house as a critical knowledge component of the organisation.

A good example would be the skill to write a game engine. Game developers used to rely on having this knowledge in-house to gain the necessary performance advantages. Now, even though you might be able to spend a lot of time and money writing a more optimised algorithm than one bought off the shelf, it's not likely to be the driver of the core creative output that makes your game sell.

In relation to results chain: I see them as more of a sensemaking tool because it tries to make the assumed influences on a system explicit. I suppose if you wrote your results as one-time goals then it would look like a traditional planning framework. I tend to use it more for systems factor analysis, eg here's a representation of how KM activities are intended to lead to valuable organisational outcomes:

<hgpmnkcajignlglh.png>

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 22/05/2021 12:05 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
It was actually my intent Stephen. My thinking was that in start-ups as well as in SMEs, a good deal of the knowledge (and more broadly, capabilities) needed to grow and prosper, are external to the organisation and must be acquired, or constructed internally. That seems to me a classic Wardley scenario. And even in larger organisations, KM capabilities are often brought in from outside via consulting and technical services, as distinct from building them internally.

It struck me that it might be interesting to try to map KM capabilities in that way, and wondered if anyone had tried it. 

Thanks for the reference to the results chain framework - I hadn’t been aware of it. At a very swift glance it looks very much like a planning implementation tool, rather than a map designed for sensemaking and decision purposes, which is how I read Wardley maps. Did I get that wrong?

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 21 May 2021, at 2:27 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

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

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

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 Patrick,

Interesting. Generally though, startups are only able to disrupt a market because they either (a) take advantage of a foundational product or service that is newly commoditised and build an innovative capability on top of that or (b) offer the commoditisation or the product themselves. I think I understand what you're getting at though. If it is possible to outsource or commoditise a knowledge product, is may not be worth trying to curate it in-house as a critical knowledge component of the organisation.

A good example would be the skill to write a game engine. Game developers used to rely on having this knowledge in-house to gain the necessary performance advantages. Now, even though you might be able to spend a lot of time and money writing a more optimised algorithm than one bought off the shelf, it's not likely to be the driver of the core creative output that makes your game sell.

In relation to results chain: I see them as more of a sensemaking tool because it tries to make the assumed influences on a system explicit. I suppose if you wrote your results as one-time goals then it would look like a traditional planning framework. I tend to use it more for systems factor analysis, eg here's a representation of how KM activities are intended to lead to valuable organisational outcomes:

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 22/05/2021 12:05 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

It was actually my intent Stephen. My thinking was that in start-ups as well as in SMEs, a good deal of the knowledge (and more broadly, capabilities) needed to grow and prosper, are external to the organisation and must be acquired, or constructed internally. That seems to me a classic Wardley scenario. And even in larger organisations, KM capabilities are often brought in from outside via consulting and technical services, as distinct from building them internally.

It struck me that it might be interesting to try to map KM capabilities in that way, and wondered if anyone had tried it. 

Thanks for the reference to the results chain framework - I hadn’t been aware of it. At a very swift glance it looks very much like a planning implementation tool, rather than a map designed for sensemaking and decision purposes, which is how I read Wardley maps. Did I get that wrong?

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 21 May 2021, at 2:27 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

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

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

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



521 - 540 of 9601