Date   

Friday Humor #humor

 

Hadn’t seen this one before. While DIKW hierarchies make me cringe, I think the last panel is pretty funny.


--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts


Re: June 2021 SIKM Call: Gavin Chait - Data Curation: Data probity in a time of COVID #monthly-call #data-science #curation #COVID-19

Stan Garfield
 

Today we held our 190th monthly call. Thanks to Gavin for presenting, to Tim Powell and Linda Hummel for speaking up, and to all those who attended. Please continue the discussion here by replying to this thread. Here are the details of the call.
Group Chat

[6/15/2021 11:01:24 AM] Louis-Pierre GUILLAUME: hello All !!

[6/15/2021 11:32:36 AM] Tim Powell: Fascinating work and presentation. Your graphics are beautiful and exemplary!

[6/15/2021 11:50:11 AM] Susan Genden: Have to go now. Thank you!


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Eli Miron
 

Thanks,


It would be great if the final curriculum of the Knowledge Management Master's Degree Program at Kent State University, could be shared with the group

 

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Kevin Wheatly
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:12 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Completely agree Patrick. Lists are really the building blocks or ingredients, if you will, towards making greater sense of what can be achieved in a variety of contexts and situations.

 

--

Kevin Wheatly | Advanced Manufacturing & Mobility Knowledge Management Lead | Global Markets - EY Knowledge

 

Ernst & Young LLP

Office: +44 (0) 207 951 7275 | kwheatly@...

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 12:51 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Both Tim and Kevin displayed a very human urge to organise when faced with a collection in list format.

 

Collection into lists is an incredibly generative act (which is why the work Stan does is so influential). Generative because it stimulates self and others to organise. It is no coincidence that the explosion of scientific knowledge in Europe in the late 17th and early 18th century was accompanied by the growth of the encyclopedia as a literary form. And different people will organise differently based on their perspectives and needs. Each form of organisation gives us the opportunity to learn something new, because the organising principle reveals something different about the things being organised. It is no coincidence that the explosion of scientific knowledge in Europe in the late 17th and early 18th century was accompanied by the growth of the encyclopedia as a literary form. 

 

For example, Linnaeus organised biological organisms by physical (sexual) characteristics. That taught us about reproduction and directed our attention to the distinguishing characteristics of species. Buffon organised by context and habitat and that taught us about ecosystems and interactions/interdependencies between species. Cancers were traditionally organised by parts of the body and that directed treatments towards affected parts. Now, DNA sequencing permits new classifications of cancer that target treatments by their biological characteristics, no matter where they show up.

 

There are two points here:

 

1. The same lists can be organised in different ways, and different organising schemes can be productive in different ways.

2. None of this can happen without the Stans of this world. List makers rule!

 

P

 

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                              +65 98528511

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

 

On 14 Jun 2021, at 7:46 PM, Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:

 

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 03:34 PM, Tim Powell wrote:

What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?

Tim, thanks for these questions. I appreciate your post.

As a member of the Knowledge Management Master's Degree Program Board of Advisors Member at Kent State University, I started the list to help plan the curriculum. My intent was to provide a set of topics from which to select courses to offer. By creating a comprehensive list of possible course topics, the advisory board can avoid missing any that might be important.

Beyond this initial purpose, the list can be used by anyone interested in learning more about the field of knowledge management. Here is a comment I received when sharing the list in a LinkedIn post: "
Thank you very much. I love this. It will be helpful for me to understand KM".

It can be used as a KM encyclopedia. Patrick Lambe described me as an "encyclopedist of the discipline" which I think is accurate, so this list fits with his description. The list not only collects relevant topics; it includes links to articles that expand on each topic. So it is a curated collection of information and opinions on each topic.

It has no formal authority, but it may carry some weight based on my experience and that of the other contributors who responded to my request for additions. It is my personal view of the scope of the field, augmented by the contributions of other community members, including both objective explanations and subjective thinking.

I shared the list for three reasons:

  1. To solicit additional topics. This worked, as the list grew from 185 to 257 topics (so far).
  2. To start a lively discussion. This worked, as this is the 32nd post in the thread (so far).
  3. To make it available to those who might benefit from its content. Based on the comments received so far, I think it will be useful to others.

 

This e-mail and any attachment are confidential and contain proprietary information, some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the author immediately by telephone or by replying to this e-mail, and then delete all copies of the e-mail on your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e- mail. Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this e-mail and any attachment has been checked for viruses, we cannot guarantee that they are virus free and we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses. We would advise that you carry out your own virus checks, especially before opening an attachment. EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. EY Global Services Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with registered number 5483856. Its registered office is at 6 More London Place, London, United Kingdom, SE1 2DA. EY Global Services Limited's business is confined to the supply of services to member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited and related entities


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Kevin Wheatly
 

Completely agree Patrick. Lists are really the building blocks or ingredients, if you will, towards making greater sense of what can be achieved in a variety of contexts and situations.

 

--

Kevin Wheatly | Advanced Manufacturing & Mobility Knowledge Management Lead | Global Markets - EY Knowledge

 

Ernst & Young LLP

Office: +44 (0) 207 951 7275 | kwheatly@...

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 12:51 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Both Tim and Kevin displayed a very human urge to organise when faced with a collection in list format.

 

Collection into lists is an incredibly generative act (which is why the work Stan does is so influential). Generative because it stimulates self and others to organise. It is no coincidence that the explosion of scientific knowledge in Europe in the late 17th and early 18th century was accompanied by the growth of the encyclopedia as a literary form. And different people will organise differently based on their perspectives and needs. Each form of organisation gives us the opportunity to learn something new, because the organising principle reveals something different about the things being organised. It is no coincidence that the explosion of scientific knowledge in Europe in the late 17th and early 18th century was accompanied by the growth of the encyclopedia as a literary form. 

 

For example, Linnaeus organised biological organisms by physical (sexual) characteristics. That taught us about reproduction and directed our attention to the distinguishing characteristics of species. Buffon organised by context and habitat and that taught us about ecosystems and interactions/interdependencies between species. Cancers were traditionally organised by parts of the body and that directed treatments towards affected parts. Now, DNA sequencing permits new classifications of cancer that target treatments by their biological characteristics, no matter where they show up.

 

There are two points here:

 

1. The same lists can be organised in different ways, and different organising schemes can be productive in different ways.

2. None of this can happen without the Stans of this world. List makers rule!

 

P

 

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:                                              +65 98528511

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

 

On 14 Jun 2021, at 7:46 PM, Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:

 

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 03:34 PM, Tim Powell wrote:

What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?

Tim, thanks for these questions. I appreciate your post.

As a member of the Knowledge Management Master's Degree Program Board of Advisors Member at Kent State University, I started the list to help plan the curriculum. My intent was to provide a set of topics from which to select courses to offer. By creating a comprehensive list of possible course topics, the advisory board can avoid missing any that might be important.

Beyond this initial purpose, the list can be used by anyone interested in learning more about the field of knowledge management. Here is a comment I received when sharing the list in a LinkedIn post: "Thank you very much. I love this. It will be helpful for me to understand KM".

It can be used as a KM encyclopedia. Patrick Lambe described me as an "encyclopedist of the discipline" which I think is accurate, so this list fits with his description. The list not only collects relevant topics; it includes links to articles that expand on each topic. So it is a curated collection of information and opinions on each topic.

It has no formal authority, but it may carry some weight based on my experience and that of the other contributors who responded to my request for additions. It is my personal view of the scope of the field, augmented by the contributions of other community members, including both objective explanations and subjective thinking.

I shared the list for three reasons:

  1. To solicit additional topics. This worked, as the list grew from 185 to 257 topics (so far).
  2. To start a lively discussion. This worked, as this is the 32nd post in the thread (so far).
  3. To make it available to those who might benefit from its content. Based on the comments received so far, I think it will be useful to others.

 

This e-mail and any attachment are confidential and contain proprietary information, some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the author immediately by telephone or by replying to this e-mail, and then delete all copies of the e-mail on your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e- mail. Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this e-mail and any attachment has been checked for viruses, we cannot guarantee that they are virus free and we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses. We would advise that you carry out your own virus checks, especially before opening an attachment. EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. EY Global Services Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with registered number 5483856. Its registered office is at 6 More London Place, London, United Kingdom, SE1 2DA. EY Global Services Limited's business is confined to the supply of services to member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited and related entities


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Patrick Lambe
 

Both Tim and Kevin displayed a very human urge to organise when faced with a collection in list format.

Collection into lists is an incredibly generative act (which is why the work Stan does is so influential). Generative because it stimulates self and others to organise. It is no coincidence that the explosion of scientific knowledge in Europe in the late 17th and early 18th century was accompanied by the growth of the encyclopedia as a literary form. And different people will organise differently based on their perspectives and needs. Each form of organisation gives us the opportunity to learn something new, because the organising principle reveals something different about the things being organised. It is no coincidence that the explosion of scientific knowledge in Europe in the late 17th and early 18th century was accompanied by the growth of the encyclopedia as a literary form. 

For example, Linnaeus organised biological organisms by physical (sexual) characteristics. That taught us about reproduction and directed our attention to the distinguishing characteristics of species. Buffon organised by context and habitat and that taught us about ecosystems and interactions/interdependencies between species. Cancers were traditionally organised by parts of the body and that directed treatments towards affected parts. Now, DNA sequencing permits new classifications of cancer that target treatments by their biological characteristics, no matter where they show up.

There are two points here:

1. The same lists can be organised in different ways, and different organising schemes can be productive in different ways.
2. None of this can happen without the Stans of this world. List makers rule!

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 14 Jun 2021, at 7:46 PM, Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 03:34 PM, Tim Powell wrote:
What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?
Tim, thanks for these questions. I appreciate your post.

As a member of the Knowledge Management Master's Degree Program Board of Advisors Member at Kent State University, I started the list to help plan the curriculum. My intent was to provide a set of topics from which to select courses to offer. By creating a comprehensive list of possible course topics, the advisory board can avoid missing any that might be important.

Beyond this initial purpose, the list can be used by anyone interested in learning more about the field of knowledge management. Here is a comment I received when sharing the list in a LinkedIn post: "Thank you very much. I love this. It will be helpful for me to understand KM".

It can be used as a KM encyclopedia. Patrick Lambe described me as an "encyclopedist of the discipline" which I think is accurate, so this list fits with his description. The list not only collects relevant topics; it includes links to articles that expand on each topic. So it is a curated collection of information and opinions on each topic.

It has no formal authority, but it may carry some weight based on my experience and that of the other contributors who responded to my request for additions. It is my personal view of the scope of the field, augmented by the contributions of other community members, including both objective explanations and subjective thinking.

I shared the list for three reasons:
  1. To solicit additional topics. This worked, as the list grew from 185 to 257 topics (so far).
  2. To start a lively discussion. This worked, as this is the 32nd post in the thread (so far).
  3. To make it available to those who might benefit from its content. Based on the comments received so far, I think it will be useful to others.


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Dennis, speaking for myself, I wasn’t offended. Your post was exuberant and a bit overstated, but who among us has not been buoyed by a great meal ?

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 14 Jun 2021, at 8:53 PM, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Patrick,

What pains me most is that most of you have been my teachers.  I am deeply embarrassed that I would have offended any of you.  I will live with this lesson-learned for quit awhile.  You, Stephen, and Arthur have contributed to some of the ideas I have been struggling with in my effort to develop and deliver a cognitive technology.  It has been an all consuming labor of love, but too much time out on the fringe.  Your measured response is appreciated. 

So, please, to all of you in the KM community.  My apologies. 

Dennis L Thomas   

On June 14, 2021 at 6:11:14 AM, Patrick Lambe (plambe@...) wrote:

To be fair to Dennis, Arthur, there is still a fair amount of bullshit floating around in KM (less, happily, than there used to be) - the word I would have trouble with is “grovelling”, simply because the bullshit artist generally doesn’t grovel.

And to be fair to Arthur, Dennis, there’s a fair amount of bullshit floating around in the cognitive sciences too, not least in the numerous attempts to describe human cognition only in terms that can be modelled through technology - a classic case of retrofitting a theory to fit the tools not the object of study.

But I suspect that if you guys had shared that steak, wine and Old Tennessee, you’d find yourself closer than this exchange would suggest.

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 14 Jun 2021, at 5:56 PM, Arthur Shelley <arthur@...> wrote:

Dennis,

Not sure what knowledge community you refer to as grovelling in bullshit - its not one I recognise or choose to engage with. There are some information professionals who mistakenly use the term KM to refer to what you mention. However, we all know this is a very limited scope and certainly only the tip of the iceberg.

The Knowledge Community I engage in shares deep insights in a trusted environment that engage in conversations about future possibilities for humanity. One that cocreates options that computers are incapable of dreaming about (yet).  Perhaps when sufficient Knowledge professionals influence these other fields to think divergently and include socialised half- thoughts to form new possibilities, we can combine ideas across all fields.

Yes computers are good at recognising patterns in data and visualising these to highlight gaps. But it takes humans to determine what the best options are to fill the gaps, of to understand which gaps are most valuable to address.

Mathematics are cool and great for informing quantitative aspects of our world. However, humans and society are subjective and qualitative - thankfully. To me the highest form of Knowledge professionalism is to fuel the flow of knowledge between people. We do this to optimise the value we cocreate when we interact to adapt and apply our collective knowledge (which by the way exists only in peoples' heads - NOT in a computer).

Lets hope that professionals from other fields are open to principles of KM as I am certain that they will accelerate their performance by being so. 

Arthur Shelley
Founder, Intelligent Answers
Producer Creative Melbourne
@Metaphorage
+61 413 047 408

On 14 Jun 2021, at 12:24, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Stephen, 

I like this article you referenced.  The “mold” example exemplifies the consciousness issue.  It’s a great example of the issue that data scientists are grappling with.   The physical world can be defined with great precision using mathematics, and objectively, the progressive steps defined in the article can be defined, but what about the consciousness, or intelligence that allows the mold to adapt to an respond to the conditions described?

To me, the behavioral dimension is beyond mathematics and AI.  If I were to extrapolate from this example in regard to the human-machine relationship, I would have to say that once people have had enough of the subversive control “the machine” has over them, it will be rejected.  

We know this to be true because if people do no not use a technology for whatever reason, it becomes obsolete.

For this reason, KM should establish and demand, technological standards that promote honest behavioral human-machine interactions.  This includes the delivery and behaviors that support human behaviors, rather than machine behaviors.  

This means (related to my world) cognitive technologies that work the way people naturally think.  

Dennis L Thomas

-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 9:34:36 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Dennis,

100% agree that we're going to have to grapple with a changing definition of "knowledge" as AI and augmented intelligence continues to mature.

For what it's worth, I like the Bitbol and Luisi model for cognition. The lack of a reproduction and self-maintenance drive does prevent us from talking about AIs as "living" although I think we can and should start talking about their "knowledge". From my perspective they are just a different form of agent in a system.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 10:42 am, Dennis Thomas wrote:
Stephen, Arthur & others.  

Michigan was the #1 State for investments in the U.S. in 2020.   This state has more mechnical engineers in the U.S. and perhaps the world. It is all about the 4th Industrial Revolution.  This is about AI, Internet of things, and Cognitive technologies.  

AI may deliver consumption-based information, which is low level knowledge, but cognitive technologies delivers high level how, why, and what if knowledge that includes dependencies, contingencies, cross-silo, cross-functional- cross-refernce, and causal knowledge.  The stuff that real knowledge is based on.  We are people.  We are not components of the machine. 

Mathematics is a precise and superb language for defining the physical world, but sucks when it comes to representing actual behavioral knowledge outside of the realm of its own data and self-serving data patterns identified from within its own skewed stores.  Where is Knowledge Management when KM doesn’t even know where it stands in relation to the big question - human consciousness?   Data scientists, neurologists, and cognitive scientists want to know?   So do I.

Is it about Controlled Vocabularies and their relevant conceptual representations, cognitive schemes that provide the frameworks for unlimited ontological expressions or something else more relevant to human consciousness?   When will the knowledge management community stop groveling in the mundane world of how to bullshit?

It’s time to pierce the vail of what human consciousness is and establish a real 4th Industrial Revolution knowledge science that makes unequivalent sense.   That’s what the data scientists are trying to do.  Why not us? 

Ghee, that steak, wine, cigar, and Ole Smokey Tennessee Liquor sure was great tonight! 

Dennis L Thomas, CEO, IQStrategix






-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 7:23:50 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Tim,

I agree that the next evolution of this list has to be along the lines you describe.

In terms of your broader point, I think it is important to acknowledge both that the application of KM will mostly fall within the remit of organisational management in the short to medium term and that if KM is to survive and thrive, it must define itself through theory, concepts, and principles that transcend that straitjacket.

See for example Bruce Boyes' article on KM disciplines, proposing that we are likely to see evolution of distinct KM methods and best practices in different domains including:

  • Organisational KM
  • KM for Development
  • Societal KM
  • Customer Experience KM

I believe we'll see more – Medical KM and Sports KM being the most obvious candidates but there are undoubtedly others.

I think we are getting there as a community, but we must always seek a richness of understanding rather than confining ourselves to the KM techniques that work for a 9-5 desk-based work paradigm (not least of all for the reason that it is disappearing before our eyes in a post-COVID world).

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 5:34 am, Tim Powell wrote:

Hi Stephen and all,

 

Thank you all for these insightful and thought-provoking comments.  I’ll second and amplify Stephen’s comments.

 

Making a list (and checking it twice) can be a first step toward…what, exactly?  What’s the desired endstate?  Though I may have missed this earlier in the thread, I always want to know, even before the WHAT, what is the SO WHAT?  What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?

 

What begins as a list can increase in value and usefulness by being then grouped into categories (i.e., a taxonomy), then including definitions (i.e., a dictionary) and synonyms (i.e., a thesaurus.)

 

To me, a list could be most helpful if it’s dynamic, inclusive, and client-centered.  Does it focus on solving client problems, does it change as those problems change, does it continually expand to meet new needs?  When knowledge becomes static and/or hide-bound — as happens too often — its relevance to client benefits plummets.

 

Given that some of us define “knowledge” as a part of IT, others as part of HR, others as part of strategy, and still others as its own thing entirely — it’s not surprising that any such list could expand rapidly to include those closely-related fields.

 

For example, in my book on the value of knowledge — a thin wedge of the knowledge universe, albeit, to me, one of paramount importance — I describe 267 key concepts for that niche alone.  My point is not to throw my picks onto the pile — but, rather, that for each specialized set of client needs, there could be (and should be) a pretty deep and unique lexicon.

 

Words matter — and our language to describe knowledge should be just as Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive as our workforce hiring policies.

 

My formal training is in management, and the other thing I notice is the list is growing to include much of the language of management.  That’s fine, to me — given that I see “knowledge management” as a sub-discipline of “management,” which also governs the other enterprise resources of land, labor, and capital.  But it seems to me that if that is the case, the list could expand almost infinitely – with its meaningfulness and impact diluted as a consequence.

 

If Knowledge and Management are overlapping circles in a Venn diagram, is Knowledge Management their sum (either-or) or their intersection (both-and)?

 

Please forgive my digressions.  Saturday (when I drafted this) is my day of rest, reflection, and renewal -- and this fascinating group always gets my wheels turning!

 

Have a great week,

 

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 Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 12:39 AM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Hi Robert,

My conclusion is that the "core" of knowledge management is (or at least should be) the analysis of organisations, diagnosis of dynfunction, and prescription of suitable treatments. Whenever a KM person picks some KM method to apply, it is implied that they are intuitively performing each of these steps. The problem is that this typical KM approach is unsystematic, unreliable, and often unreplicable (even if it is successful).

I try to be a cheerleader for all initiatives that improve standards in KM language, analysis and diagnostic methods. I strongly believe this is the only path to a "true" and sustainable KM discipline. While Stan's list would likely benefit from summary pages as                         well as links to longer articles, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a really valuable jumping-off point.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 12/06/2021 10:36 am, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io wrote:

I like the list - Stan you are nothing if not the encyclopedist of KM. I thought a while about what bothered me and it's this. I have a conviction that KM is an open kind of thing. It's not a fixed kind of thing like a proprietary method. Its boundaries are always going to be negotiable. So we're pretty much able to adopt, adapt, and co-operate with just about any kind of method or tool available. But what, if anything, is really ours?  I think there's a smaller list of key areas, and probably quite a small number of key strategies. Myriad bits and pieces, maybe, but they don't affect the core. We need all of the basics of business strategy, planning and management; project, process, service, product and change management for starters. We need information management and IT - especially content and collaboration IT. We need organisational, team and community leadership, organisational learning, innovation, communities (might be truly 'ours'), operating model. We're not, of course, trying to cover the totality of all of that, but we will use                           all of it at some time. The list is nice to have. 




June 2021 SIKM Call: Gavin Chait - Data Curation: Data probity in a time of COVID #monthly-call #data-science #curation #COVID-19

Stan Garfield
 

This is a reminder of tomorrow's monthly call from 11 am to 12 noon EDT. Note that the US is now on Daylight Savings Time.

  • June 15, 2021 SIKM Call: Gavin Chait - Data Curation: Data probity in a time of COVID
  • Slides
  • For online chat, use the group chat in FreeConferenceCall.com.

SIKM Leaders Community Monthly Call

  • Where: (712) 770-4035 (US and Canada) Passcode 178302
  • International Dial-in Numbers
  • You can join online using your computer’s speakers and microphone at http://join.freeconferencecall.com/stangarfield
    - Online Meeting ID: stangarfield
  • If you join online, be sure to click on the phone icon and then choose your audio preference.
  • Please don't turn on video - this increases the size of the recording ten times.
  • If you have problems connecting, call customer service at 844-844-1322.
  • Occurs the third Tuesday of every month from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM Eastern Time (USA)
  • Community Site 
  • Slides - There is no live screen sharing - you follow along by advancing the slides yourself.
  • Previous Calls
  • Future Calls
  • Calendar


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Dennis Thomas
 

Patrick,

What pains me most is that most of you have been my teachers.  I am deeply embarrassed that I would have offended any of you.  I will live with this lesson-learned for quit awhile.  You, Stephen, and Arthur have contributed to some of the ideas I have been struggling with in my effort to develop and deliver a cognitive technology.  It has been an all consuming labor of love, but too much time out on the fringe.  Your measured response is appreciated. 

So, please, to all of you in the KM community.  My apologies. 

Dennis L Thomas   

On June 14, 2021 at 6:11:14 AM, Patrick Lambe (plambe@...) wrote:

To be fair to Dennis, Arthur, there is still a fair amount of bullshit floating around in KM (less, happily, than there used to be) - the word I would have trouble with is “grovelling”, simply because the bullshit artist generally doesn’t grovel.

And to be fair to Arthur, Dennis, there’s a fair amount of bullshit floating around in the cognitive sciences too, not least in the numerous attempts to describe human cognition only in terms that can be modelled through technology - a classic case of retrofitting a theory to fit the tools not the object of study.

But I suspect that if you guys had shared that steak, wine and Old Tennessee, you’d find yourself closer than this exchange would suggest.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 14 Jun 2021, at 5:56 PM, Arthur Shelley <arthur@...> wrote:

Dennis,

Not sure what knowledge community you refer to as grovelling in bullshit - its not one I recognise or choose to engage with. There are some information professionals who mistakenly use the term KM to refer to what you mention. However, we all know this is a very limited scope and certainly only the tip of the iceberg.

The Knowledge Community I engage in shares deep insights in a trusted environment that engage in conversations about future possibilities for humanity. One that cocreates options that computers are incapable of dreaming about (yet).  Perhaps when sufficient Knowledge professionals influence these other fields to think divergently and include socialised half- thoughts to form new possibilities, we can combine ideas across all fields.

Yes computers are good at recognising patterns in data and visualising these to highlight gaps. But it takes humans to determine what the best options are to fill the gaps, of to understand which gaps are most valuable to address.

Mathematics are cool and great for informing quantitative aspects of our world. However, humans and society are subjective and qualitative - thankfully. To me the highest form of Knowledge professionalism is to fuel the flow of knowledge between people. We do this to optimise the value we cocreate when we interact to adapt and apply our collective knowledge (which by the way exists only in peoples' heads - NOT in a computer).

Lets hope that professionals from other fields are open to principles of KM as I am certain that they will accelerate their performance by being so. 

Arthur Shelley
Founder, Intelligent Answers
Producer Creative Melbourne
@Metaphorage
+61 413 047 408

On 14 Jun 2021, at 12:24, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Stephen, 

I like this article you referenced.  The “mold” example exemplifies the consciousness issue.  It’s a great example of the issue that data scientists are grappling with.   The physical world can be defined with great precision using mathematics, and objectively, the progressive steps defined in the article can be defined, but what about the consciousness, or intelligence that allows the mold to adapt to an respond to the conditions described?

To me, the behavioral dimension is beyond mathematics and AI.  If I were to extrapolate from this example in regard to the human-machine relationship, I would have to say that once people have had enough of the subversive control “the machine” has over them, it will be rejected.  

We know this to be true because if people do no not use a technology for whatever reason, it becomes obsolete.

For this reason, KM should establish and demand, technological standards that promote honest behavioral human-machine interactions.  This includes the delivery and behaviors that support human behaviors, rather than machine behaviors.  

This means (related to my world) cognitive technologies that work the way people naturally think.  

Dennis L Thomas

-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 9:34:36 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Dennis,

100% agree that we're going to have to grapple with a changing definition of "knowledge" as AI and augmented intelligence continues to mature.

For what it's worth, I like the Bitbol and Luisi model for cognition. The lack of a reproduction and self-maintenance drive does prevent us from talking about AIs as "living" although I think we can and should start talking about their "knowledge". From my perspective they are just a different form of agent in a system.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 10:42 am, Dennis Thomas wrote:
Stephen, Arthur & others.  

Michigan was the #1 State for investments in the U.S. in 2020.   This state has more mechnical engineers in the U.S. and perhaps the world. It is all about the 4th Industrial Revolution.  This is about AI, Internet of things, and Cognitive technologies.  

AI may deliver consumption-based information, which is low level knowledge, but cognitive technologies delivers high level how, why, and what if knowledge that includes dependencies, contingencies, cross-silo, cross-functional- cross-refernce, and causal knowledge.  The stuff that real knowledge is based on.  We are people.  We are not components of the machine. 

Mathematics is a precise and superb language for defining the physical world, but sucks when it comes to representing actual behavioral knowledge outside of the realm of its own data and self-serving data patterns identified from within its own skewed stores.  Where is Knowledge Management when KM doesn’t even know where it stands in relation to the big question - human consciousness?   Data scientists, neurologists, and cognitive scientists want to know?   So do I.

Is it about Controlled Vocabularies and their relevant conceptual representations, cognitive schemes that provide the frameworks for unlimited ontological expressions or something else more relevant to human consciousness?   When will the knowledge management community stop groveling in the mundane world of how to bullshit?

It’s time to pierce the vail of what human consciousness is and establish a real 4th Industrial Revolution knowledge science that makes unequivalent sense.   That’s what the data scientists are trying to do.  Why not us? 

Ghee, that steak, wine, cigar, and Ole Smokey Tennessee Liquor sure was great tonight! 

Dennis L Thomas, CEO, IQStrategix






-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 7:23:50 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Tim,

I agree that the next evolution of this list has to be along the lines you describe.

In terms of your broader point, I think it is important to acknowledge both that the application of KM will mostly fall within the remit of organisational management in the short to medium term and that if KM is to survive and thrive, it must define itself through theory, concepts, and principles that transcend that straitjacket.

See for example Bruce Boyes' article on KM disciplines, proposing that we are likely to see evolution of distinct KM methods and best practices in different domains including:

  • Organisational KM
  • KM for Development
  • Societal KM
  • Customer Experience KM

I believe we'll see more – Medical KM and Sports KM being the most obvious candidates but there are undoubtedly others.

I think we are getting there as a community, but we must always seek a richness of understanding rather than confining ourselves to the KM techniques that work for a 9-5 desk-based work paradigm (not least of all for the reason that it is disappearing before our eyes in a post-COVID world).

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 5:34 am, Tim Powell wrote:

Hi Stephen and all,

 

Thank you all for these insightful and thought-provoking comments.  I’ll second and amplify Stephen’s comments.

 

Making a list (and checking it twice) can be a first step toward…what, exactly?  What’s the desired endstate?  Though I may have missed this earlier in the thread, I always want to know, even before the WHAT, what is the SO WHAT?  What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?

 

What begins as a list can increase in value and usefulness by being then grouped into categories (i.e., a taxonomy), then including definitions (i.e., a dictionary) and synonyms (i.e., a thesaurus.)

 

To me, a list could be most helpful if it’s dynamic, inclusive, and client-centered.  Does it focus on solving client problems, does it change as those problems change, does it continually expand to meet new needs?  When knowledge becomes static and/or hide-bound — as happens too often — its relevance to client benefits plummets.

 

Given that some of us define “knowledge” as a part of IT, others as part of HR, others as part of strategy, and still others as its own thing entirely — it’s not surprising that any such list could expand rapidly to include those closely-related fields.

 

For example, in my book on the value of knowledge — a thin wedge of the knowledge universe, albeit, to me, one of paramount importance — I describe 267 key concepts for that niche alone.  My point is not to throw my picks onto the pile — but, rather, that for each specialized set of client needs, there could be (and should be) a pretty deep and unique lexicon.

 

Words matter — and our language to describe knowledge should be just as Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive as our workforce hiring policies.

 

My formal training is in management, and the other thing I notice is the list is growing to include much of the language of management.  That’s fine, to me — given that I see “knowledge management” as a sub-discipline of “management,” which also governs the other enterprise resources of land, labor, and capital.  But it seems to me that if that is the case, the list could expand almost infinitely – with its meaningfulness and impact diluted as a consequence.

 

If Knowledge and Management are overlapping circles in a Venn diagram, is Knowledge Management their sum (either-or) or their intersection (both-and)?

 

Please forgive my digressions.  Saturday (when I drafted this) is my day of rest, reflection, and renewal -- and this fascinating group always gets my wheels turning!

 

Have a great week,

 

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 Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 12:39 AM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Hi Robert,

My conclusion is that the "core" of knowledge management is (or at least should be) the analysis of organisations, diagnosis of dynfunction, and prescription of suitable treatments. Whenever a KM person picks some KM method to apply, it is implied that they are intuitively performing each of these steps. The problem is that this typical KM approach is unsystematic, unreliable, and often unreplicable (even if it is successful).

I try to be a cheerleader for all initiatives that improve standards in KM language, analysis and diagnostic methods. I strongly believe this is the only path to a "true" and sustainable KM discipline. While Stan's list would likely benefit from summary pages as well as links to longer articles, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a really valuable jumping-off point.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 12/06/2021 10:36 am, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io wrote:

I like the list - Stan you are nothing if not the encyclopedist of KM. I thought a while about what bothered me and it's this. I have a conviction that KM is an open kind of thing. It's not a fixed kind of thing like a proprietary method. Its boundaries are always going to be negotiable. So we're pretty much able to adopt, adapt, and co-operate with just about any kind of method or tool available. But what, if anything, is really ours?  I think there's a smaller list of key areas, and probably quite a small number of key strategies. Myriad bits and pieces, maybe, but they don't affect the core. We need all of the basics of business strategy, planning and management; project, process, service, product and change management for starters. We need information management and IT - especially content and collaboration IT. We need organisational, team and community leadership, organisational learning, innovation, communities (might be truly 'ours'), operating model. We're not, of course, trying to cover the totality of all of that, but we will use all of it at some time. The list is nice to have.



Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Dennis Thomas
 

Wow.  It looks like I had a better time last night than I realized.  Thanks to all for indulging a moment of insanity and forgiving me for my choice of words.  I deeply apologize for my choice of words.  Many, if not most of you are far more involved in current KM than I am.  So please forgive.  

Otherwise, Since I brought up the point I did create a graphic to help get my point across.  It’s what I am thinking about these days, and trying to get into code.  Perhaps it should be on the list?   Going on vacation!!!!

Best to all, Dennis 



On June 14, 2021 at 7:46:17 AM, Stan Garfield (stangarfield@...) wrote:

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 03:34 PM, Tim Powell wrote:
What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?
Tim, thanks for these questions. I appreciate your post.

As a member of the Knowledge Management Master's Degree Program Board of Advisors Member at Kent State University, I started the list to help plan the curriculum. My intent was to provide a set of topics from which to select courses to offer. By creating a comprehensive list of possible course topics, the advisory board can avoid missing any that might be important.

Beyond this initial purpose, the list can be used by anyone interested in learning more about the field of knowledge management. Here is a comment I received when sharing the list in a LinkedIn post: "Thank you very much. I love this. It will be helpful for me to understand KM".

It can be used as a KM encyclopedia. Patrick Lambe described me as an "encyclopedist of the discipline" which I think is accurate, so this list fits with his description. The list not only collects relevant topics; it includes links to articles that expand on each topic. So it is a curated collection of information and opinions on each topic.

It has no formal authority, but it may carry some weight based on my experience and that of the other contributors who responded to my request for additions. It is my personal view of the scope of the field, augmented by the contributions of other community members, including both objective explanations and subjective thinking.

I shared the list for three reasons:
  1. To solicit additional topics. This worked, as the list grew from 185 to 257 topics (so far).
  2. To start a lively discussion. This worked, as this is the 32nd post in the thread (so far).
  3. To make it available to those who might benefit from its content. Based on the comments received so far, I think it will be useful to others.


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Stan Garfield
 

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 03:34 PM, Tim Powell wrote:
What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?
Tim, thanks for these questions. I appreciate your post.

As a member of the Knowledge Management Master's Degree Program Board of Advisors Member at Kent State University, I started the list to help plan the curriculum. My intent was to provide a set of topics from which to select courses to offer. By creating a comprehensive list of possible course topics, the advisory board can avoid missing any that might be important.

Beyond this initial purpose, the list can be used by anyone interested in learning more about the field of knowledge management. Here is a comment I received when sharing the list in a LinkedIn post: "Thank you very much. I love this. It will be helpful for me to understand KM".

It can be used as a KM encyclopedia. Patrick Lambe described me as an "encyclopedist of the discipline" which I think is accurate, so this list fits with his description. The list not only collects relevant topics; it includes links to articles that expand on each topic. So it is a curated collection of information and opinions on each topic.

It has no formal authority, but it may carry some weight based on my experience and that of the other contributors who responded to my request for additions. It is my personal view of the scope of the field, augmented by the contributions of other community members, including both objective explanations and subjective thinking.

I shared the list for three reasons:
  1. To solicit additional topics. This worked, as the list grew from 185 to 257 topics (so far).
  2. To start a lively discussion. This worked, as this is the 32nd post in the thread (so far).
  3. To make it available to those who might benefit from its content. Based on the comments received so far, I think it will be useful to others.


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Patrick Lambe
 

To be fair to Dennis, Arthur, there is still a fair amount of bullshit floating around in KM (less, happily, than there used to be) - the word I would have trouble with is “grovelling”, simply because the bullshit artist generally doesn’t grovel.

And to be fair to Arthur, Dennis, there’s a fair amount of bullshit floating around in the cognitive sciences too, not least in the numerous attempts to describe human cognition only in terms that can be modelled through technology - a classic case of retrofitting a theory to fit the tools not the object of study.

But I suspect that if you guys had shared that steak, wine and Old Tennessee, you’d find yourself closer than this exchange would suggest.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 14 Jun 2021, at 5:56 PM, Arthur Shelley <arthur@...> wrote:

Dennis,

Not sure what knowledge community you refer to as grovelling in bullshit - its not one I recognise or choose to engage with. There are some information professionals who mistakenly use the term KM to refer to what you mention. However, we all know this is a very limited scope and certainly only the tip of the iceberg.

The Knowledge Community I engage in shares deep insights in a trusted environment that engage in conversations about future possibilities for humanity. One that cocreates options that computers are incapable of dreaming about (yet).  Perhaps when sufficient Knowledge professionals influence these other fields to think divergently and include socialised half- thoughts to form new possibilities, we can combine ideas across all fields.

Yes computers are good at recognising patterns in data and visualising these to highlight gaps. But it takes humans to determine what the best options are to fill the gaps, of to understand which gaps are most valuable to address.

Mathematics are cool and great for informing quantitative aspects of our world. However, humans and society are subjective and qualitative - thankfully. To me the highest form of Knowledge professionalism is to fuel the flow of knowledge between people. We do this to optimise the value we cocreate when we interact to adapt and apply our collective knowledge (which by the way exists only in peoples' heads - NOT in a computer).

Lets hope that professionals from other fields are open to principles of KM as I am certain that they will accelerate their performance by being so. 

Arthur Shelley
Founder, Intelligent Answers
Producer Creative Melbourne
@Metaphorage
+61 413 047 408

On 14 Jun 2021, at 12:24, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Stephen, 

I like this article you referenced.  The “mold” example exemplifies the consciousness issue.  It’s a great example of the issue that data scientists are grappling with.   The physical world can be defined with great precision using mathematics, and objectively, the progressive steps defined in the article can be defined, but what about the consciousness, or intelligence that allows the mold to adapt to an respond to the conditions described?

To me, the behavioral dimension is beyond mathematics and AI.  If I were to extrapolate from this example in regard to the human-machine relationship, I would have to say that once people have had enough of the subversive control “the machine” has over them, it will be rejected.  

We know this to be true because if people do no not use a technology for whatever reason, it becomes obsolete.

For this reason, KM should establish and demand, technological standards that promote honest behavioral human-machine interactions.  This includes the delivery and behaviors that support human behaviors, rather than machine behaviors.  

This means (related to my world) cognitive technologies that work the way people naturally think.  

Dennis L Thomas

-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 9:34:36 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Dennis,

100% agree that we're going to have to grapple with a changing definition of "knowledge" as AI and augmented intelligence continues to mature.

For what it's worth, I like the Bitbol and Luisi model for cognition. The lack of a reproduction and self-maintenance drive does prevent us from talking about AIs as "living" although I think we can and should start talking about their "knowledge". From my perspective they are just a different form of agent in a system.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 10:42 am, Dennis Thomas wrote:
Stephen, Arthur & others.  

Michigan was the #1 State for investments in the U.S. in 2020.   This state has more mechnical engineers in the U.S. and perhaps the world. It is all about the 4th Industrial Revolution.  This is about AI, Internet of things, and Cognitive technologies.  

AI may deliver consumption-based information, which is low level knowledge, but cognitive technologies delivers high level how, why, and what if knowledge that includes dependencies, contingencies, cross-silo, cross-functional- cross-refernce, and causal knowledge.  The stuff that real knowledge is based on.  We are people.  We are not components of the machine. 

Mathematics is a precise and superb language for defining the physical world, but sucks when it comes to representing actual behavioral knowledge outside of the realm of its own data and self-serving data patterns identified from within its own skewed stores.  Where is Knowledge Management when KM doesn’t even know where it stands in relation to the big question - human consciousness?   Data scientists, neurologists, and cognitive scientists want to know?   So do I.

Is it about Controlled Vocabularies and their relevant conceptual representations, cognitive schemes that provide the frameworks for unlimited ontological expressions or something else more relevant to human consciousness?   When will the knowledge management community stop groveling in the mundane world of how to bullshit?

It’s time to pierce the vail of what human consciousness is and establish a real 4th Industrial Revolution knowledge science that makes unequivalent sense.   That’s what the data scientists are trying to do.  Why not us? 

Ghee, that steak, wine, cigar, and Ole Smokey Tennessee Liquor sure was great tonight! 

Dennis L Thomas, CEO, IQStrategix






-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 7:23:50 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Tim,

I agree that the next evolution of this list has to be along the lines you describe.

In terms of your broader point, I think it is important to acknowledge both that the application of KM will mostly fall within the remit of organisational management in the short to medium term and that if KM is to survive and thrive, it must define itself through theory, concepts, and principles that transcend that straitjacket.

See for example Bruce Boyes' article on KM disciplines, proposing that we are likely to see evolution of distinct KM methods and best practices in different domains including:

  • Organisational KM
  • KM for Development
  • Societal KM
  • Customer Experience KM

I believe we'll see more – Medical KM and Sports KM being the most obvious candidates but there are undoubtedly others.

I think we are getting there as a community, but we must always seek a richness of understanding rather than confining ourselves to the KM techniques that work for a 9-5 desk-based work paradigm (not least of all for the reason that it is disappearing before our eyes in a post-COVID world).

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 5:34 am, Tim Powell wrote:

Hi Stephen and all,

 

Thank you all for these insightful and thought-provoking comments.  I’ll second and amplify Stephen’s comments.

 

Making a list (and checking it twice) can be a first step toward…what, exactly?  What’s the desired endstate?  Though I may have missed this earlier in the thread, I always want to know, even before the WHAT, what is the SO WHAT?  What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?

 

What begins as a list can increase in value and usefulness by being then grouped into categories (i.e., a taxonomy), then including definitions (i.e., a dictionary) and synonyms (i.e., a thesaurus.)

 

To me, a list could be most helpful if it’s dynamic, inclusive, and client-centered.  Does it focus on solving client problems, does it change as those problems change, does it continually expand to meet new needs?  When knowledge becomes static and/or hide-bound — as happens too often — its relevance to client benefits plummets.

 

Given that some of us define “knowledge” as a part of IT, others as part of HR, others as part of strategy, and still others as its own thing entirely — it’s not surprising that any such list could expand rapidly to include those closely-related fields.

 

For example, in my book on the value of knowledge — a thin wedge of the knowledge universe, albeit, to me, one of paramount importance — I describe 267 key concepts for that niche alone.  My point is not to throw my picks onto the pile — but, rather, that for each specialized set of client needs, there could be (and should be) a pretty deep and unique lexicon.

 

Words matter — and our language to describe knowledge should be just as Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive as our workforce hiring policies.

 

My formal training is in management, and the other thing I notice is the list is growing to include much of the language of management.  That’s fine, to me — given that I see “knowledge management” as a sub-discipline of “management,” which also governs the other enterprise resources of land, labor, and capital.  But it seems to me that if that is the case, the list could expand almost infinitely – with its meaningfulness and impact diluted as a consequence.

 

If Knowledge and Management are overlapping circles in a Venn diagram, is Knowledge Management their sum (either-or) or their intersection (both-and)?

 

Please forgive my digressions.  Saturday (when I drafted this) is my day of rest, reflection, and renewal -- and this fascinating group always gets my wheels turning!

 

Have a great week,

 

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 Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 12:39 AM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Hi Robert,

My conclusion is that the "core" of knowledge management is (or at least should be) the analysis of organisations, diagnosis of dynfunction, and prescription of suitable treatments. Whenever a KM person picks some KM method to apply, it is implied that they are intuitively performing each of these steps. The problem is that this typical KM approach is unsystematic, unreliable, and often unreplicable (even if it is successful).

I try to be a cheerleader for all initiatives that improve standards in KM language, analysis and diagnostic methods. I strongly believe this is the only path to a "true" and sustainable KM discipline. While Stan's list would likely benefit from summary pages as well as links to longer articles, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a really valuable jumping-off point.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 12/06/2021 10:36 am, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io wrote:

I like the list - Stan you are nothing if not the encyclopedist of KM. I thought a while about what bothered me and it's this. I have a conviction that KM is an open kind of thing. It's not a fixed kind of thing like a proprietary method. Its boundaries are always going to be negotiable. So we're pretty much able to adopt, adapt, and co-operate with just about any kind of method or tool available. But what, if anything, is really ours?  I think there's a smaller list of key areas, and probably quite a small number of key strategies. Myriad bits and pieces, maybe, but they don't affect the core. We need all of the basics of business strategy, planning and management; project, process, service, product and change management for starters. We need information management and IT - especially content and collaboration IT. We need organisational, team and community leadership, organisational learning, innovation, communities (might be truly 'ours'), operating model. We're not, of course, trying to cover the totality of all of that, but we will use all of it at some time. The list is nice to have.



Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Kevin Wheatly
 

Hi,

 

A good list of areas across the KM discipline. I like lists but they do start to become somewhat unwieldy. I was mulling over the idea of a venn diagram with core KM areas in the middle and then also shared discipline but actually reminded myself that process maps can work well too. With that in mind as a next step which would add more context I tend to think that a good way of showing the breadth of the sphere of KM is by looking at a process map for a given company or organisation. This gives you the environment more specifically and then you can start to look at where KM can play a part in supporting and delivering impact. It also helps with establishing plans and subsequent prioritisation of initiatives. Additionally it can also assist you in looking at scaling up in the future. I have used in the past in terms of prioritising initiatives, looking at the maturity of aspects of KM and also it’s been really helpfully in demonstrating more broadly where KM can play a significant part within an organisation.

 

So for example with say the professional service organisation there will be strong area for business development and also delivery of work. Clearly in a non-product producing organisation there is a large volume of knowledge related work eg. Pharma organisation R&D would likewise have strong area of KM opportunity. As with all organisations there would be common core processes, finance, HR etc and everything would pretty much be underpinned by technology that could accelerate efficiencies, capabilities, collaboration etc.

 

--

Kevin Wheatly | Advanced Manufacturing & Mobility Knowledge Management Lead | EY Knowledge

 

Ernst & Young LLP

Office: +44 (0) 207 951 7275 | kwheatly@...

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert M. Taylor via groups.io
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 10:13 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

 

A few more:

Alumni

Awards

Benefits Management (you have Benefits)

Budgeting

Business / Enterprise Architecture

Business Analysis

Business Deployment

Compliance, Regulatory ~

Conferences

Confidentiality

Corporate Memory / History

CRM Customer Relationship Management

CX Customer Experience

Cyber Security

DAM Digital Asset Management

Data Management

Document Automation

Employer Brand / Proposition

Event Management

Exemplars

FAQs

Guides

Information Research

Infrastructure

Internal Communication

Interviewing

Knowledge Acquisition

Privacy

Problem Solving

Recruiting

Service Design and Management

Suggestions Schemes (you have Idea Management)

Surveys

Templates

This e-mail and any attachment are confidential and contain proprietary information, some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the author immediately by telephone or by replying to this e-mail, and then delete all copies of the e-mail on your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e- mail. Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that this e-mail and any attachment has been checked for viruses, we cannot guarantee that they are virus free and we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses. We would advise that you carry out your own virus checks, especially before opening an attachment. EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. EY Global Services Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with registered number 5483856. Its registered office is at 6 More London Place, London, United Kingdom, SE1 2DA. EY Global Services Limited's business is confined to the supply of services to member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited and related entities


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Arthur Shelley
 

Dennis,

Not sure what knowledge community you refer to as grovelling in bullshit - its not one I recognise or choose to engage with. There are some information professionals who mistakenly use the term KM to refer to what you mention. However, we all know this is a very limited scope and certainly only the tip of the iceberg.

The Knowledge Community I engage in shares deep insights in a trusted environment that engage in conversations about future possibilities for humanity. One that cocreates options that computers are incapable of dreaming about (yet).  Perhaps when sufficient Knowledge professionals influence these other fields to think divergently and include socialised half- thoughts to form new possibilities, we can combine ideas across all fields.

Yes computers are good at recognising patterns in data and visualising these to highlight gaps. But it takes humans to determine what the best options are to fill the gaps, of to understand which gaps are most valuable to address.

Mathematics are cool and great for informing quantitative aspects of our world. However, humans and society are subjective and qualitative - thankfully. To me the highest form of Knowledge professionalism is to fuel the flow of knowledge between people. We do this to optimise the value we cocreate when we interact to adapt and apply our collective knowledge (which by the way exists only in peoples' heads - NOT in a computer).

Lets hope that professionals from other fields are open to principles of KM as I am certain that they will accelerate their performance by being so. 

Arthur Shelley
Founder, Intelligent Answers
Producer Creative Melbourne
www.OrganizationalZoo.com
@Metaphorage
+61 413 047 408
https://au.linkedin.com/pub/arthur-shelley/1/4bb/528 

On 14 Jun 2021, at 12:24, Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...> wrote:

Stephen, 

I like this article you referenced.  The “mold” example exemplifies the consciousness issue.  It’s a great example of the issue that data scientists are grappling with.   The physical world can be defined with great precision using mathematics, and objectively, the progressive steps defined in the article can be defined, but what about the consciousness, or intelligence that allows the mold to adapt to an respond to the conditions described?

To me, the behavioral dimension is beyond mathematics and AI.  If I were to extrapolate from this example in regard to the human-machine relationship, I would have to say that once people have had enough of the subversive control “the machine” has over them, it will be rejected.  

We know this to be true because if people do no not use a technology for whatever reason, it becomes obsolete.

For this reason, KM should establish and demand, technological standards that promote honest behavioral human-machine interactions.  This includes the delivery and behaviors that support human behaviors, rather than machine behaviors.  

This means (related to my world) cognitive technologies that work the way people naturally think.  

Dennis L Thomas

-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 9:34:36 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Dennis,

100% agree that we're going to have to grapple with a changing definition of "knowledge" as AI and augmented intelligence continues to mature.

For what it's worth, I like the Bitbol and Luisi model for cognition. The lack of a reproduction and self-maintenance drive does prevent us from talking about AIs as "living" although I think we can and should start talking about their "knowledge". From my perspective they are just a different form of agent in a system.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 10:42 am, Dennis Thomas wrote:
Stephen, Arthur & others.  

Michigan was the #1 State for investments in the U.S. in 2020.   This state has more mechnical engineers in the U.S. and perhaps the world. It is all about the 4th Industrial Revolution.  This is about AI, Internet of things, and Cognitive technologies.  

AI may deliver consumption-based information, which is low level knowledge, but cognitive technologies delivers high level how, why, and what if knowledge that includes dependencies, contingencies, cross-silo, cross-functional- cross-refernce, and causal knowledge.  The stuff that real knowledge is based on.  We are people.  We are not components of the machine. 

Mathematics is a precise and superb language for defining the physical world, but sucks when it comes to representing actual behavioral knowledge outside of the realm of its own data and self-serving data patterns identified from within its own skewed stores.  Where is Knowledge Management when KM doesn’t even know where it stands in relation to the big question - human consciousness?   Data scientists, neurologists, and cognitive scientists want to know?   So do I.

Is it about Controlled Vocabularies and their relevant conceptual representations, cognitive schemes that provide the frameworks for unlimited ontological expressions or something else more relevant to human consciousness?   When will the knowledge management community stop groveling in the mundane world of how to bullshit?

It’s time to pierce the vail of what human consciousness is and establish a real 4th Industrial Revolution knowledge science that makes unequivalent sense.   That’s what the data scientists are trying to do.  Why not us? 

Ghee, that steak, wine, cigar, and Ole Smokey Tennessee Liquor sure was great tonight! 

Dennis L Thomas, CEO, IQStrategix






-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 7:23:50 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Tim,

I agree that the next evolution of this list has to be along the lines you describe.

In terms of your broader point, I think it is important to acknowledge both that the application of KM will mostly fall within the remit of organisational management in the short to medium term and that if KM is to survive and thrive, it must define itself through theory, concepts, and principles that transcend that straitjacket.

See for example Bruce Boyes' article on KM disciplines, proposing that we are likely to see evolution of distinct KM methods and best practices in different domains including:

  • Organisational KM
  • KM for Development
  • Societal KM
  • Customer Experience KM

I believe we'll see more – Medical KM and Sports KM being the most obvious candidates but there are undoubtedly others.

I think we are getting there as a community, but we must always seek a richness of understanding rather than confining ourselves to the KM techniques that work for a 9-5 desk-based work paradigm (not least of all for the reason that it is disappearing before our eyes in a post-COVID world).

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 5:34 am, Tim Powell wrote:

Hi Stephen and all,

 

Thank you all for these insightful and thought-provoking comments.  I’ll second and amplify Stephen’s comments.

 

Making a list (and checking it twice) can be a first step toward…what, exactly?  What’s the desired endstate?  Though I may have missed this earlier in the thread, I always want to know, even before the WHAT, what is the SO WHAT?  What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?

 

What begins as a list can increase in value and usefulness by being then grouped into categories (i.e., a taxonomy), then including definitions (i.e., a dictionary) and synonyms (i.e., a thesaurus.)

 

To me, a list could be most helpful if it’s dynamic, inclusive, and client-centered.  Does it focus on solving client problems, does it change as those problems change, does it continually expand to meet new needs?  When knowledge becomes static and/or hide-bound — as happens too often — its relevance to client benefits plummets.

 

Given that some of us define “knowledge” as a part of IT, others as part of HR, others as part of strategy, and still others as its own thing entirely — it’s not surprising that any such list could expand rapidly to include those closely-related fields.

 

For example, in my book on the value of knowledge — a thin wedge of the knowledge universe, albeit, to me, one of paramount importance — I describe 267 key concepts for that niche alone.  My point is not to throw my picks onto the pile — but, rather, that for each specialized set of client needs, there could be (and should be) a pretty deep and unique lexicon.

 

Words matter — and our language to describe knowledge should be just as Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive as our workforce hiring policies.

 

My formal training is in management, and the other thing I notice is the list is growing to include much of the language of management.  That’s fine, to me — given that I see “knowledge management” as a sub-discipline of “management,” which also governs the other enterprise resources of land, labor, and capital.  But it seems to me that if that is the case, the list could expand almost infinitely – with its meaningfulness and impact diluted as a consequence.

 

If Knowledge and Management are overlapping circles in a Venn diagram, is Knowledge Management their sum (either-or) or their intersection (both-and)?

 

Please forgive my digressions.  Saturday (when I drafted this) is my day of rest, reflection, and renewal -- and this fascinating group always gets my wheels turning!

 

Have a great week,

 

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 Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 12:39 AM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Hi Robert,

My conclusion is that the "core" of knowledge management is (or at least should be) the analysis of organisations, diagnosis of dynfunction, and prescription of suitable treatments. Whenever a KM person picks some KM method to apply, it is implied that they are intuitively performing each of these steps. The problem is that this typical KM approach is unsystematic, unreliable, and often unreplicable (even if it is successful).

I try to be a cheerleader for all initiatives that improve standards in KM language, analysis and diagnostic methods. I strongly believe this is the only path to a "true" and sustainable KM discipline. While Stan's list would likely benefit from summary pages as well as links to longer articles, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a really valuable jumping-off point.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 12/06/2021 10:36 am, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io wrote:

I like the list - Stan you are nothing if not the encyclopedist of KM. I thought a while about what bothered me and it's this. I have a conviction that KM is an open kind of thing. It's not a fixed kind of thing like a proprietary method. Its boundaries are always going to be negotiable. So we're pretty much able to adopt, adapt, and co-operate with just about any kind of method or tool available. But what, if anything, is really ours?  I think there's a smaller list of key areas, and probably quite a small number of key strategies. Myriad bits and pieces, maybe, but they don't affect the core. We need all of the basics of business strategy, planning and management; project, process, service, product and change management for starters. We need information management and IT - especially content and collaboration IT. We need organisational, team and community leadership, organisational learning, innovation, communities (might be truly 'ours'), operating model. We're not, of course, trying to cover the totality of all of that, but we will use all of it at some time. The list is nice to have.


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Robert M. Taylor
 
Edited

A few more:
Alumni

Awards

Benefits Management (you have Benefits)

Budgeting

Business / Enterprise Architecture

Business Analysis

Business Deployment

Compliance, Regulatory ~

Conferences

Confidentiality

Corporate Memory / History

CRM Customer Relationship Management

CX Customer Experience

Cyber Security

DAM Digital Asset Management

Data Management

Document Automation

Employer Brand / Proposition

Event Management

Exemplars

FAQs

Guides

Information Research

Infrastructure

Internal Communication

Interviewing

Knowledge Acquisition

Privacy

Problem Solving

Recruiting

Service Design and Management

Suggestions Schemes (you have Idea Management)

Surveys

Templates


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Dennis Thomas
 

Stephen, 

I like this article you referenced.  The “mold” example exemplifies the consciousness issue.  It’s a great example of the issue that data scientists are grappling with.   The physical world can be defined with great precision using mathematics, and objectively, the progressive steps defined in the article can be defined, but what about the consciousness, or intelligence that allows the mold to adapt to an respond to the conditions described?

To me, the behavioral dimension is beyond mathematics and AI.  If I were to extrapolate from this example in regard to the human-machine relationship, I would have to say that once people have had enough of the subversive control “the machine” has over them, it will be rejected.  

We know this to be true because if people do no not use a technology for whatever reason, it becomes obsolete.

For this reason, KM should establish and demand, technological standards that promote honest behavioral human-machine interactions.  This includes the delivery and behaviors that support human behaviors, rather than machine behaviors.  

This means (related to my world) cognitive technologies that work the way people naturally think.  

Dennis L Thomas

-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 9:34:36 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Dennis,

100% agree that we're going to have to grapple with a changing definition of "knowledge" as AI and augmented intelligence continues to mature.

For what it's worth, I like the Bitbol and Luisi model for cognition. The lack of a reproduction and self-maintenance drive does prevent us from talking about AIs as "living" although I think we can and should start talking about their "knowledge". From my perspective they are just a different form of agent in a system.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 10:42 am, Dennis Thomas wrote:
Stephen, Arthur & others.  

Michigan was the #1 State for investments in the U.S. in 2020.   This state has more mechnical engineers in the U.S. and perhaps the world. It is all about the 4th Industrial Revolution.  This is about AI, Internet of things, and Cognitive technologies.  

AI may deliver consumption-based information, which is low level knowledge, but cognitive technologies delivers high level how, why, and what if knowledge that includes dependencies, contingencies, cross-silo, cross-functional- cross-refernce, and causal knowledge.  The stuff that real knowledge is based on.  We are people.  We are not components of the machine. 

Mathematics is a precise and superb language for defining the physical world, but sucks when it comes to representing actual behavioral knowledge outside of the realm of its own data and self-serving data patterns identified from within its own skewed stores.  Where is Knowledge Management when KM doesn’t even know where it stands in relation to the big question - human consciousness?   Data scientists, neurologists, and cognitive scientists want to know?   So do I.

Is it about Controlled Vocabularies and their relevant conceptual representations, cognitive schemes that provide the frameworks for unlimited ontological expressions or something else more relevant to human consciousness?   When will the knowledge management community stop groveling in the mundane world of how to bullshit?

It’s time to pierce the vail of what human consciousness is and establish a real 4th Industrial Revolution knowledge science that makes unequivalent sense.   That’s what the data scientists are trying to do.  Why not us? 

Ghee, that steak, wine, cigar, and Ole Smokey Tennessee Liquor sure was great tonight! 

Dennis L Thomas, CEO, IQStrategix






-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 7:23:50 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Tim,

I agree that the next evolution of this list has to be along the lines you describe.

In terms of your broader point, I think it is important to acknowledge both that the application of KM will mostly fall within the remit of organisational management in the short to medium term and that if KM is to survive and thrive, it must define itself through theory, concepts, and principles that transcend that straitjacket.

See for example Bruce Boyes' article on KM disciplines, proposing that we are likely to see evolution of distinct KM methods and best practices in different domains including:

  • Organisational KM
  • KM for Development
  • Societal KM
  • Customer Experience KM

I believe we'll see more – Medical KM and Sports KM being the most obvious candidates but there are undoubtedly others.

I think we are getting there as a community, but we must always seek a richness of understanding rather than confining ourselves to the KM techniques that work for a 9-5 desk-based work paradigm (not least of all for the reason that it is disappearing before our eyes in a post-COVID world).

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 5:34 am, Tim Powell wrote:

Hi Stephen and all,

 

Thank you all for these insightful and thought-provoking comments.  I’ll second and amplify Stephen’s comments.

 

Making a list (and checking it twice) can be a first step toward…what, exactly?  What’s the desired endstate?  Though I may have missed this earlier in the thread, I always want to know, even before the WHAT, what is the SO WHAT?  What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?

 

What begins as a list can increase in value and usefulness by being then grouped into categories (i.e., a taxonomy), then including definitions (i.e., a dictionary) and synonyms (i.e., a thesaurus.)

 

To me, a list could be most helpful if it’s dynamic, inclusive, and client-centered.  Does it focus on solving client problems, does it change as those problems change, does it continually expand to meet new needs?  When knowledge becomes static and/or hide-bound — as happens too often — its relevance to client benefits plummets.

 

Given that some of us define “knowledge” as a part of IT, others as part of HR, others as part of strategy, and still others as its own thing entirely — it’s not surprising that any such list could expand rapidly to include those closely-related fields.

 

For example, in my book on the value of knowledge — a thin wedge of the knowledge universe, albeit, to me, one of paramount importance — I describe 267 key concepts for that niche alone.  My point is not to throw my picks onto the pile — but, rather, that for each specialized set of client needs, there could be (and should be) a pretty deep and unique lexicon.

 

Words matter — and our language to describe knowledge should be just as Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive as our workforce hiring policies.

 

My formal training is in management, and the other thing I notice is the list is growing to include much of the language of management.  That’s fine, to me — given that I see “knowledge management” as a sub-discipline of “management,” which also governs the other enterprise resources of land, labor, and capital.  But it seems to me that if that is the case, the list could expand almost infinitely – with its meaningfulness and impact diluted as a consequence.

 

If Knowledge and Management are overlapping circles in a Venn diagram, is Knowledge Management their sum (either-or) or their intersection (both-and)?

 

Please forgive my digressions.  Saturday (when I drafted this) is my day of rest, reflection, and renewal -- and this fascinating group always gets my wheels turning!

 

Have a great week,

 

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 Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 12:39 AM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Hi Robert,

My conclusion is that the "core" of knowledge management is (or at least should be) the analysis of organisations, diagnosis of dynfunction, and prescription of suitable treatments. Whenever a KM person picks some KM method to apply, it is implied that they are intuitively performing each of these steps. The problem is that this typical KM approach is unsystematic, unreliable, and often unreplicable (even if it is successful).

I try to be a cheerleader for all initiatives that improve standards in KM language, analysis and diagnostic methods. I strongly believe this is the only path to a "true" and sustainable KM discipline. While Stan's list would likely benefit from summary pages as well as links to longer articles, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a really valuable jumping-off point.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 12/06/2021 10:36 am, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io wrote:

I like the list - Stan you are nothing if not the encyclopedist of KM. I thought a while about what bothered me and it's this. I have a conviction that KM is an open kind of thing. It's not a fixed kind of thing like a proprietary method. Its boundaries are always going to be negotiable. So we're pretty much able to adopt, adapt, and co-operate with just about any kind of method or tool available. But what, if anything, is really ours?  I think there's a smaller list of key areas, and probably quite a small number of key strategies. Myriad bits and pieces, maybe, but they don't affect the core. We need all of the basics of business strategy, planning and management; project, process, service, product and change management for starters. We need information management and IT - especially content and collaboration IT. We need organisational, team and community leadership, organisational learning, innovation, communities (might be truly 'ours'), operating model. We're not, of course, trying to cover the totality of all of that, but we will use all of it at some time. The list is nice to have.


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Dennis,

100% agree that we're going to have to grapple with a changing definition of "knowledge" as AI and augmented intelligence continues to mature.

For what it's worth, I like the Bitbol and Luisi model for cognition. The lack of a reproduction and self-maintenance drive does prevent us from talking about AIs as "living" although I think we can and should start talking about their "knowledge". From my perspective they are just a different form of agent in a system.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 10:42 am, Dennis Thomas wrote:

Stephen, Arthur & others.  

Michigan was the #1 State for investments in the U.S. in 2020.   This state has more mechnical engineers in the U.S. and perhaps the world. It is all about the 4th Industrial Revolution.  This is about AI, Internet of things, and Cognitive technologies.  

AI may deliver consumption-based information, which is low level knowledge, but cognitive technologies delivers high level how, why, and what if knowledge that includes dependencies, contingencies, cross-silo, cross-functional- cross-refernce, and causal knowledge.  The stuff that real knowledge is based on.  We are people.  We are not components of the machine. 

Mathematics is a precise and superb language for defining the physical world, but sucks when it comes to representing actual behavioral knowledge outside of the realm of its own data and self-serving data patterns identified from within its own skewed stores.  Where is Knowledge Management when KM doesn’t even know where it stands in relation to the big question - human consciousness?   Data scientists, neurologists, and cognitive scientists want to know?   So do I.

Is it about Controlled Vocabularies and their relevant conceptual representations, cognitive schemes that provide the frameworks for unlimited ontological expressions or something else more relevant to human consciousness?   When will the knowledge management community stop groveling in the mundane world of how to bullshit?

It’s time to pierce the vail of what human consciousness is and establish a real 4th Industrial Revolution knowledge science that makes unequivalent sense.   That’s what the data scientists are trying to do.  Why not us? 

Ghee, that steak, wine, cigar, and Ole Smokey Tennessee Liquor sure was great tonight! 

Dennis L Thomas, CEO, IQStrategix






-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 7:23:50 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Tim,

I agree that the next evolution of this list has to be along the lines you describe.

In terms of your broader point, I think it is important to acknowledge both that the application of KM will mostly fall within the remit of organisational management in the short to medium term and that if KM is to survive and thrive, it must define itself through theory, concepts, and principles that transcend that straitjacket.

See for example Bruce Boyes' article on KM disciplines, proposing that we are likely to see evolution of distinct KM methods and best practices in different domains including:

  • Organisational KM
  • KM for Development
  • Societal KM
  • Customer Experience KM

I believe we'll see more – Medical KM and Sports KM being the most obvious candidates but there are undoubtedly others.

I think we are getting there as a community, but we must always seek a richness of understanding rather than confining ourselves to the KM techniques that work for a 9-5 desk-based work paradigm (not least of all for the reason that it is disappearing before our eyes in a post-COVID world).

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 5:34 am, Tim Powell wrote:

Hi Stephen and all,

 

Thank you all for these insightful and thought-provoking comments.  I’ll second and amplify Stephen’s comments.

 

Making a list (and checking it twice) can be a first step toward…what, exactly?  What’s the desired endstate?  Though I may have missed this earlier in the thread, I always want to know, even before the WHAT, what is the SO WHAT?  What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?

 

What begins as a list can increase in value and usefulness by being then grouped into categories (i.e., a taxonomy), then including definitions (i.e., a dictionary) and synonyms (i.e., a thesaurus.)

 

To me, a list could be most helpful if it’s dynamic, inclusive, and client-centered.  Does it focus on solving client problems, does it change as those problems change, does it continually expand to meet new needs?  When knowledge becomes static and/or hide-bound — as happens too often — its relevance to client benefits plummets.

 

Given that some of us define “knowledge” as a part of IT, others as part of HR, others as part of strategy, and still others as its own thing entirely — it’s not surprising that any such list could expand rapidly to include those closely-related fields.

 

For example, in my book on the value of knowledge — a thin wedge of the knowledge universe, albeit, to me, one of paramount importance — I describe 267 key concepts for that niche alone.  My point is not to throw my picks onto the pile — but, rather, that for each specialized set of client needs, there could be (and should be) a pretty deep and unique lexicon.

 

Words matter — and our language to describe knowledge should be just as Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive as our workforce hiring policies.

 

My formal training is in management, and the other thing I notice is the list is growing to include much of the language of management.  That’s fine, to me — given that I see “knowledge management” as a sub-discipline of “management,” which also governs the other enterprise resources of land, labor, and capital.  But it seems to me that if that is the case, the list could expand almost infinitely – with its meaningfulness and impact diluted as a consequence.

 

If Knowledge and Management are overlapping circles in a Venn diagram, is Knowledge Management their sum (either-or) or their intersection (both-and)?

 

Please forgive my digressions.  Saturday (when I drafted this) is my day of rest, reflection, and renewal -- and this fascinating group always gets my wheels turning!

 

Have a great week,

 

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 Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 12:39 AM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Hi Robert,

My conclusion is that the "core" of knowledge management is (or at least should be) the analysis of organisations, diagnosis of dynfunction, and prescription of suitable treatments. Whenever a KM person picks some KM method to apply, it is implied that they are intuitively performing each of these steps. The problem is that this typical KM approach is unsystematic, unreliable, and often unreplicable (even if it is successful).

I try to be a cheerleader for all initiatives that improve standards in KM language, analysis and diagnostic methods. I strongly believe this is the only path to a "true" and sustainable KM discipline. While Stan's list would likely benefit from summary pages as well as links to longer articles, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a really valuable jumping-off point.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 12/06/2021 10:36 am, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io wrote:

I like the list - Stan you are nothing if not the encyclopedist of KM. I thought a while about what bothered me and it's this. I have a conviction that KM is an open kind of thing. It's not a fixed kind of thing like a proprietary method. Its boundaries are always going to be negotiable. So we're pretty much able to adopt, adapt, and co-operate with just about any kind of method or tool available. But what, if anything, is really ours?  I think there's a smaller list of key areas, and probably quite a small number of key strategies. Myriad bits and pieces, maybe, but they don't affect the core. We need all of the basics of business strategy, planning and management; project, process, service, product and change management for starters. We need information management and IT - especially content and collaboration IT. We need organisational, team and community leadership, organisational learning, innovation, communities (might be truly 'ours'), operating model. We're not, of course, trying to cover the totality of all of that, but we will use all of it at some time. The list is nice to have.


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Dennis Thomas
 

Stephen, Arthur & others.  

Michigan was the #1 State for investments in the U.S. in 2020.   This state has more mechnical engineers in the U.S. and perhaps the world. It is all about the 4th Industrial Revolution.  This is about AI, Internet of things, and Cognitive technologies.  

AI may deliver consumption-based information, which is low level knowledge, but cognitive technologies delivers high level how, why, and what if knowledge that includes dependencies, contingencies, cross-silo, cross-functional- cross-refernce, and causal knowledge.  The stuff that real knowledge is based on.  We are people.  We are not components of the machine. 

Mathematics is a precise and superb language for defining the physical world, but sucks when it comes to representing actual behavioral knowledge outside of the realm of its own data and self-serving data patterns identified from within its own skewed stores.  Where is Knowledge Management when KM doesn’t even know where it stands in relation to the big question - human consciousness?   Data scientists, neurologists, and cognitive scientists want to know?   So do I.

Is it about Controlled Vocabularies and their relevant conceptual representations, cognitive schemes that provide the frameworks for unlimited ontological expressions or something else more relevant to human consciousness?   When will the knowledge management community stop groveling in the mundane world of how to bullshit?

It’s time to pierce the vail of what human consciousness is and establish a real 4th Industrial Revolution knowledge science that makes unequivalent sense.   That’s what the data scientists are trying to do.  Why not us? 

Ghee, that steak, wine, cigar, and Ole Smokey Tennessee Liquor sure was great tonight! 

Dennis L Thomas, CEO, IQStrategix






-- 
DL Thomas

On June 13, 2021 at 7:23:50 PM, Stephen Bounds (km@...) wrote:

Hi Tim,

I agree that the next evolution of this list has to be along the lines you describe.

In terms of your broader point, I think it is important to acknowledge both that the application of KM will mostly fall within the remit of organisational management in the short to medium term and that if KM is to survive and thrive, it must define itself through theory, concepts, and principles that transcend that straitjacket.

See for example Bruce Boyes' article on KM disciplines, proposing that we are likely to see evolution of distinct KM methods and best practices in different domains including:

  • Organisational KM
  • KM for Development
  • Societal KM
  • Customer Experience KM

I believe we'll see more – Medical KM and Sports KM being the most obvious candidates but there are undoubtedly others.

I think we are getting there as a community, but we must always seek a richness of understanding rather than confining ourselves to the KM techniques that work for a 9-5 desk-based work paradigm (not least of all for the reason that it is disappearing before our eyes in a post-COVID world).

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 5:34 am, Tim Powell wrote:

Hi Stephen and all,

 

Thank you all for these insightful and thought-provoking comments.  I’ll second and amplify Stephen’s comments.

 

Making a list (and checking it twice) can be a first step toward…what, exactly?  What’s the desired endstate?  Though I may have missed this earlier in the thread, I always want to know, even before the WHAT, what is the SO WHAT?  What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?

 

What begins as a list can increase in value and usefulness by being then grouped into categories (i.e., a taxonomy), then including definitions (i.e., a dictionary) and synonyms (i.e., a thesaurus.)

 

To me, a list could be most helpful if it’s dynamic, inclusive, and client-centered.  Does it focus on solving client problems, does it change as those problems change, does it continually expand to meet new needs?  When knowledge becomes static and/or hide-bound — as happens too often — its relevance to client benefits plummets.

 

Given that some of us define “knowledge” as a part of IT, others as part of HR, others as part of strategy, and still others as its own thing entirely — it’s not surprising that any such list could expand rapidly to include those closely-related fields.

 

For example, in my book on the value of knowledge — a thin wedge of the knowledge universe, albeit, to me, one of paramount importance — I describe 267 key concepts for that niche alone.  My point is not to throw my picks onto the pile — but, rather, that for each specialized set of client needs, there could be (and should be) a pretty deep and unique lexicon.

 

Words matter — and our language to describe knowledge should be just as Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive as our workforce hiring policies.

 

My formal training is in management, and the other thing I notice is the list is growing to include much of the language of management.  That’s fine, to me — given that I see “knowledge management” as a sub-discipline of “management,” which also governs the other enterprise resources of land, labor, and capital.  But it seems to me that if that is the case, the list could expand almost infinitely – with its meaningfulness and impact diluted as a consequence.

 

If Knowledge and Management are overlapping circles in a Venn diagram, is Knowledge Management their sum (either-or) or their intersection (both-and)?

 

Please forgive my digressions.  Saturday (when I drafted this) is my day of rest, reflection, and renewal -- and this fascinating group always gets my wheels turning!

 

Have a great week,

 

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 Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 12:39 AM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Hi Robert,

My conclusion is that the "core" of knowledge management is (or at least should be) the analysis of organisations, diagnosis of dynfunction, and prescription of suitable treatments. Whenever a KM person picks some KM method to apply, it is implied that they are intuitively performing each of these steps. The problem is that this typical KM approach is unsystematic, unreliable, and often unreplicable (even if it is successful).

I try to be a cheerleader for all initiatives that improve standards in KM language, analysis and diagnostic methods. I strongly believe this is the only path to a "true" and sustainable KM discipline. While Stan's list would likely benefit from summary pages as well as links to longer articles, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a really valuable jumping-off point.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 12/06/2021 10:36 am, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io wrote:

I like the list - Stan you are nothing if not the encyclopedist of KM. I thought a while about what bothered me and it's this. I have a conviction that KM is an open kind of thing. It's not a fixed kind of thing like a proprietary method. Its boundaries are always going to be negotiable. So we're pretty much able to adopt, adapt, and co-operate with just about any kind of method or tool available. But what, if anything, is really ours?  I think there's a smaller list of key areas, and probably quite a small number of key strategies. Myriad bits and pieces, maybe, but they don't affect the core. We need all of the basics of business strategy, planning and management; project, process, service, product and change management for starters. We need information management and IT - especially content and collaboration IT. We need organisational, team and community leadership, organisational learning, innovation, communities (might be truly 'ours'), operating model. We're not, of course, trying to cover the totality of all of that, but we will use all of it at some time. The list is nice to have.


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Tim,

I agree that the next evolution of this list has to be along the lines you describe.

In terms of your broader point, I think it is important to acknowledge both that the application of KM will mostly fall within the remit of organisational management in the short to medium term and that if KM is to survive and thrive, it must define itself through theory, concepts, and principles that transcend that straitjacket.

See for example Bruce Boyes' article on KM disciplines, proposing that we are likely to see evolution of distinct KM methods and best practices in different domains including:

  • Organisational KM
  • KM for Development
  • Societal KM
  • Customer Experience KM

I believe we'll see more – Medical KM and Sports KM being the most obvious candidates but there are undoubtedly others.

I think we are getting there as a community, but we must always seek a richness of understanding rather than confining ourselves to the KM techniques that work for a 9-5 desk-based work paradigm (not least of all for the reason that it is disappearing before our eyes in a post-COVID world).

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/06/2021 5:34 am, Tim Powell wrote:

Hi Stephen and all,

 

Thank you all for these insightful and thought-provoking comments.  I’ll second and amplify Stephen’s comments.

 

Making a list (and checking it twice) can be a first step toward…what, exactly?  What’s the desired endstate?  Though I may have missed this earlier in the thread, I always want to know, even before the WHAT, what is the SO WHAT?  What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?

 

What begins as a list can increase in value and usefulness by being then grouped into categories (i.e., a taxonomy), then including definitions (i.e., a dictionary) and synonyms (i.e., a thesaurus.)

 

To me, a list could be most helpful if it’s dynamic, inclusive, and client-centered.  Does it focus on solving client problems, does it change as those problems change, does it continually expand to meet new needs?  When knowledge becomes static and/or hide-bound — as happens too often — its relevance to client benefits plummets.

 

Given that some of us define “knowledge” as a part of IT, others as part of HR, others as part of strategy, and still others as its own thing entirely — it’s not surprising that any such list could expand rapidly to include those closely-related fields.

 

For example, in my book on the value of knowledge — a thin wedge of the knowledge universe, albeit, to me, one of paramount importance — I describe 267 key concepts for that niche alone.  My point is not to throw my picks onto the pile — but, rather, that for each specialized set of client needs, there could be (and should be) a pretty deep and unique lexicon.

 

Words matter — and our language to describe knowledge should be just as Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive as our workforce hiring policies.

 

My formal training is in management, and the other thing I notice is the list is growing to include much of the language of management.  That’s fine, to me — given that I see “knowledge management” as a sub-discipline of “management,” which also governs the other enterprise resources of land, labor, and capital.  But it seems to me that if that is the case, the list could expand almost infinitely – with its meaningfulness and impact diluted as a consequence.

 

If Knowledge and Management are overlapping circles in a Venn diagram, is Knowledge Management their sum (either-or) or their intersection (both-and)?

 

Please forgive my digressions.  Saturday (when I drafted this) is my day of rest, reflection, and renewal -- and this fascinating group always gets my wheels turning!

 

Have a great week,

 

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 Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 12:39 AM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Hi Robert,

My conclusion is that the "core" of knowledge management is (or at least should be) the analysis of organisations, diagnosis of dynfunction, and prescription of suitable treatments. Whenever a KM person picks some KM method to apply, it is implied that they are intuitively performing each of these steps. The problem is that this typical KM approach is unsystematic, unreliable, and often unreplicable (even if it is successful).

I try to be a cheerleader for all initiatives that improve standards in KM language, analysis and diagnostic methods. I strongly believe this is the only path to a "true" and sustainable KM discipline. While Stan's list would likely benefit from summary pages as well as links to longer articles, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a really valuable jumping-off point.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 12/06/2021 10:36 am, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io wrote:

I like the list - Stan you are nothing if not the encyclopedist of KM. I thought a while about what bothered me and it's this. I have a conviction that KM is an open kind of thing. It's not a fixed kind of thing like a proprietary method. Its boundaries are always going to be negotiable. So we're pretty much able to adopt, adapt, and co-operate with just about any kind of method or tool available. But what, if anything, is really ours?  I think there's a smaller list of key areas, and probably quite a small number of key strategies. Myriad bits and pieces, maybe, but they don't affect the core. We need all of the basics of business strategy, planning and management; project, process, service, product and change management for starters. We need information management and IT - especially content and collaboration IT. We need organisational, team and community leadership, organisational learning, innovation, communities (might be truly 'ours'), operating model. We're not, of course, trying to cover the totality of all of that, but we will use all of it at some time. The list is nice to have.


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Arthur Shelley
 

Tim,

You make some good points in your post. I agree it is good to know a purpose - WHEN it is possible to do so. Sometimes (like in creativity, innovation, discovery missions, personal development ... AND in my cooking) we do not know what the specific outcome will be or why we are sharing. However we do know that a constructive conversation around aligned concepts will produce some wonderful insights that did not exist before gge conversation.

Thus exploratory, divergent approach enables serendipitous cocreation of nee knowledge and insights. Including this exchange between us now. This would not have happened if it we only acted on a known purpose. I did not wake up this morning and think, I will go onto SIKM Leaders and share a post about knowledge cocreation...
I opened my email out of curiosity to explore what is happening, read & reflected on your contribution, which stimulated me to share my thoughts with members. This in turn will open new thoughts for others - which may help them in other purposes.

Emergent conversations cocreate magic! 😊
This inturn, creates some new purposes (and perhaps more importantly, new relationships and strengthened trust between people in a community).


Arthur Shelley
Founder, Intelligent Answers
Producer Creative Melbourne
www.OrganizationalZoo.com
@Metaphorage
+61 413 047 408
https://au.linkedin.com/pub/arthur-shelley/1/4bb/528

On 14 Jun 2021, at 02:37, Tami Dubi <tamidubi@gmail.com> wrote:

Stan and Patrick thank you for the information, I will share with the group the results.


Re: List of Knowledge Management Topics #KM101 #definition #roles

Tim Powell
 

Hi Stephen and all,

 

Thank you all for these insightful and thought-provoking comments.  I’ll second and amplify Stephen’s comments.

 

Making a list (and checking it twice) can be a first step toward…what, exactly?  What’s the desired endstate?  Though I may have missed this earlier in the thread, I always want to know, even before the WHAT, what is the SO WHAT?  What is the PURPOSE-mission-goal of capturing such a list?  Who is it for?  How is it to be used?  What authority will it convey (if only by implication)?

 

What begins as a list can increase in value and usefulness by being then grouped into categories (i.e., a taxonomy), then including definitions (i.e., a dictionary) and synonyms (i.e., a thesaurus.)

 

To me, a list could be most helpful if it’s dynamic, inclusive, and client-centered.  Does it focus on solving client problems, does it change as those problems change, does it continually expand to meet new needs?  When knowledge becomes static and/or hide-bound — as happens too often — its relevance to client benefits plummets.

 

Given that some of us define “knowledge” as a part of IT, others as part of HR, others as part of strategy, and still others as its own thing entirely — it’s not surprising that any such list could expand rapidly to include those closely-related fields.

 

For example, in my book on the value of knowledge — a thin wedge of the knowledge universe, albeit, to me, one of paramount importance — I describe 267 key concepts for that niche alone.  My point is not to throw my picks onto the pile — but, rather, that for each specialized set of client needs, there could be (and should be) a pretty deep and unique lexicon.

 

Words matter — and our language to describe knowledge should be just as Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive as our workforce hiring policies.

 

My formal training is in management, and the other thing I notice is the list is growing to include much of the language of management.  That’s fine, to me — given that I see “knowledge management” as a sub-discipline of “management,” which also governs the other enterprise resources of land, labor, and capital.  But it seems to me that if that is the case, the list could expand almost infinitely – with its meaningfulness and impact diluted as a consequence.

 

If Knowledge and Management are overlapping circles in a Venn diagram, is Knowledge Management their sum (either-or) or their intersection (both-and)?

 

Please forgive my digressions.  Saturday (when I drafted this) is my day of rest, reflection, and renewal -- and this fascinating group always gets my wheels turning!

 

Have a great week,

 

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 Stephen Bounds <km@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 12:39 AM
To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] List of Knowledge Management Topics #definition #KM101

 

Hi Robert,

My conclusion is that the "core" of knowledge management is (or at least should be) the analysis of organisations, diagnosis of dynfunction, and prescription of suitable treatments. Whenever a KM person picks some KM method to apply, it is implied that they are intuitively performing each of these steps. The problem is that this typical KM approach is unsystematic, unreliable, and often unreplicable (even if it is successful).

I try to be a cheerleader for all initiatives that improve standards in KM language, analysis and diagnostic methods. I strongly believe this is the only path to a "true" and sustainable KM discipline. While Stan's list would likely benefit from summary pages as well as links to longer articles, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a really valuable jumping-off point.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 12/06/2021 10:36 am, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io wrote:

I like the list - Stan you are nothing if not the encyclopedist of KM. I thought a while about what bothered me and it's this. I have a conviction that KM is an open kind of thing. It's not a fixed kind of thing like a proprietary method. Its boundaries are always going to be negotiable. So we're pretty much able to adopt, adapt, and co-operate with just about any kind of method or tool available. But what, if anything, is really ours?  I think there's a smaller list of key areas, and probably quite a small number of key strategies. Myriad bits and pieces, maybe, but they don't affect the core. We need all of the basics of business strategy, planning and management; project, process, service, product and change management for starters. We need information management and IT - especially content and collaboration IT. We need organisational, team and community leadership, organisational learning, innovation, communities (might be truly 'ours'), operating model. We're not, of course, trying to cover the totality of all of that, but we will use all of it at some time. The list is nice to have.

381 - 400 of 9520