On 6 Jul 2021, at 08:49, Ginetta Gueli via groups.io <ginetta.gueli@...> wrote:



Good morning Dylan,
my name is Ginetta and I am an information and knowledge manager and I can share with you a specific experience I had with a small association as Knowledge Coordinator.

This was the situation at day 1:
- huge repository with lots of documents (even for trainings) that needed to be classified and organized in a way that everyone could find what they needed quickly and efficiently;
- employees preferred to create a document from scratch, instead of performing a search in the db,
- folders were unstructured (no logic, no taxonomy, etc.),
- no budget for buying a platform.

What did I do? Very briefly:

1.  1-2-1 talk with all employees to understand their needs, frustrations, expectations and mindset logic,
2.  creating with each head of dept. and his/her team specific dept. knowledge maps,
3.  thanks to the knowledge maps, we were able to restructure each dept. folder in subfolders with a shared logic and way of thinking,
4.  once the steps 2 and 3 were completed, I set up a meeting with the rest of the team and asked them questions like this: "If you had to look for document X (or data Y, or information Z), where would you look? Each employee had to point the finger to the related dept. and folder(s) where s/he thought to re find that info. We had several surprises...
5. based on step 4, each dept. map (and related folders and subfolders) had to be reviewed and aligned by following a common & shared logic between a specific dept. and the others,
6. all the work was literally attached on the office walls so that employees were forced to see them every day. They maps were removed from the walls, when I realized that the structure was 100% in their minds,
7. I created digital documents replicating what we drew, of course, and in parallel, I was also looking for an IT provider of a KM platform for a potential second phase. The purpose was moving the folder logic we agreed on, to the new platform ;-).

Thanks to these activities, the teams (among the others):

• discovered that the 88% of their files were redundant and/or obsolete and/or inconsistent and/or irrelevant -> they were cancelled,
• were able to re find documents easily -> no frustration anymore,
• did not do the work of others -> efficiency increased.

My suggestion is: try to involve your colleagues as much as possible. It is together that the new structure will be really useful to them and your effort appreciated. The structure must be the personification of people mindset and work, only in this way (I think) they will be more open to invest on a more sophisticated tool.

I am available to have a call with you, if you want. In the meantime, you can watch the seminar I did with John Hovell about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0lCB2VPAso

Last but not least, on a personal note, even if this is not what you normally do, I am positive that the task will give you an incredible exposure and you will know much more than anybody else, and this is an asset in KM. I speak by experience ;-)

 

Good luck and all the best,
Ginetta

--
Ginetta Gueli
Information & Knowledge Manager | Project Manager

Dear KMers,

I need help with putting in place and onboarding and OffBoarding package for a large organisation.

I work for an organisation that has over 1000 staff, and where there are usually many reassignments. The problem is that, while we have a package, it is over 20 pages, which means new people don’t take the time to read it when they come to the country. Any advise on how this can be improved? We also don’t have an offboarding process that helps us retain knowledge from people leaving, any advice on how to go about this? Any insights will be highly appreciated.

Lydia

The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments is intended for specific individuals or entities, and may be confidential, proprietary or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, delete this message and do not disclose, distribute or copy it to any third party or otherwise use this message. The content of this message does not necessarily reflect the official position of the World Food Programme. Electronic messages are not secure or error free and may contain viruses or may be delayed, and the sender is not liable for any of these occurrences. The sender reserves the right to monitor, record and retain electronic messages.

On 6 Jul 2021, at 03:42, Dylan Williams <dylanwms@...> wrote:

Hi all - I'm working with a small recruiting company that's trying to centralize and organize its training materials in a way that makes the materials easy to present and manage. Currently, they have one big Recruiting Training manual (Word doc) that sits in a SP folder.  They have best practices documents (associated with various sections of the Training manual) across their Team sites; they also have a lot of related training documents sitting in emails and on hard drives. They've hired a trainer to do the training, and they've asked me to come up with a way of housing the materials that makes them easily referenced by their recruiters and easily managed by the trainer. They're not ready to spend (yet!) on an LMS, so I'm working with Sharepoint/Teams. My initial thinking on the structure is to use the Training manual chapter headings to create individual folders (e.g., Interviewing Your Candidate; Prepping Your Candidate For Sending Out; Following Up with the Client, etc.)  and supporting the chapter with associated Best Practices and other commentary. So - a series of folders, each one focused on a recruiting topic, presented sequentially (e.g., the "Interviewing the Candidate" folder would obviously come before the "Sending them to the Client"). But this whole area is not what I normally do, so I'd be interested in any advice or approaches you think I should consider. Thanks.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.