Date   

Re: Productization of services #consulting #jobs

Seth Earley
 

Thanks for the thoughtful response Stephen.  We are quite familiar with KPMG’s knowledge processes for audit  - our firm worked quite extensively with audit to build an iteration of their content architecture (taxonomy, metadata, controlled vocabularies, content models) so this certainly makes sense.  

 

There are highly repeatable aspects of our work.   The output is different for each client per your reasoning below. 

 

Seth

 

Cell: 781-820-8080

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 2:39 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Productization of services

 

Hi Seth,

In that case, you may find it useful to draw on the experiences of others who have productised services before. Couple of interesting resources:

 Specifically, it is notable that consulting firms tends to only have success in productising highly repeatable methods (such as audits) where:

Virtually the same audit approach applies to all clients. Substantial knowledge resources support audits, including checklists (designed both to ensure that a complete approach is taken and to focus attention on critical issues) and authoritative pronouncements (to guide auditors).

General consulting resources tend to be only occasionally reused due to the necessity to adapt and tailor approaches to the specific client situation, which can make any effort to standardise them uneconomic. According to these articles, KPMG has instead focused on a layered approach to content, where methodologies are subsidiary to more strategic "top points of view" and drawn upon rather than explicitly offered as products:

KPMG supplements this content repository by enterprise social management that focuses on "the ability to secure a new client quickly, connecting ... people with expertise that might not otherwise have been found". But of course, the outputs will still be bespoke consulting and don't represent a true productisation effort.

If you have identified a genuine opportunity for productisation (à la audits), then you will be following the same general processes as any product offering. Typically something like:

  1. Understand market trends and consumer drivers
  2. Segment your market and identify a product or product cluster to be used to serve each target market
  3. Assess competitive products and define your unique value proposition
  4. Set revenue and cost targets for each product and segment, both individually and in aggregate
  5. Map costs against impact on client outcomes to identify standardisation and optimisation opportunities
  6. Develop your product platforms and “smart differentiation” based on client needs. For a consulting service this means:
    • standardising and/or modularising methods and deliverables
    • evaluating the marginal benefit of offering multiple variations and/or bespoke customisation
  7. Release and promote market offering (NB: costs of developing collateral to support promotion should have been factored in above)
  8. Review business outcomes and analyse cost-benefit of product lines
  9. Go to step 1

It's fair to say that productising in the IM/KM space (outside of technology platforms) is challenging, simply because the work required rarely scales predictably or linearly. A fairly small organisation might have a massive tangle of systems, whereas a large company might have a scalable but simple business model. One of your challenges will be finding a sweet spot that offers reliable margins while being usable for a broad enough volume of organisations, or pricing in a way that scales usefully without being too complex to understand.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 14/10/2021 2:17 am, Seth Earley wrote:

Thanks Stephen.  As I say, we do have the methodologies.  We staff projects with senior people (send a note if folks are interested in freelance opportunities) and use approaches that have been built over the years.  So we don’t need to go spelunking into our repositories.  Yes, we have a standard taxonomy and content model that is used to classify and organize content.  For this project we are taking an end to end view – from messaging through delivery.  It is packaging the various components.

 

Seth

 

Cell: 781-820-8080

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 11:06 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Productization of services

 

Hi Seth,

If I may venture an opinion, it seems that your biggest gap is really robust knowledge about your knowledge.

Do you have a standardised taxonomy that describes your IP? Off the top of my head I can think of a few facets that might be useful:

  1. Basics
    1. Internal method name (unique)
    2. Client-facing terms used
    3. Summary description
    4. Creation date (if known)
    5. Last utilised date (if known)
  1. Strategic fit (text, possibly keyworded)
    1. Utility (attainable objectives)
    2. Typical goals and success metrics from past usage
    3. Recommended or required technologies
    4. Required role participants & skills
    5. Indications and contraindications for use (ie culture, norms and values likely to lead to success or failure)
  1. Challenge of implementation (star rating?)
    1. Consulting budget
    2. Staff time investment
    3. Complexity of methods
    4. Minimum maturity level
    5. Trust requirements
  1. History
    1. Document / artefact repository links
    2. List of past projects using the IP
    3. Staff involved in creation, refinement, or use
    4. Links to other versions / variants
    5. Commentary, FAQs, lessons learned, etc

Presumably you don't have the resources to manually review and classify all 20+ years of resources, of course! Depending on volume and value, it might be worth using an auto-classifier AI as a starting point.

Even without any automated system, just cataloguing your highest value IP would be a valuable starting point for gaining better insights, control, and refinement over effective use and reuse of your IP. Over time, you could build in processes that would progressively gradually improve the quality of your IP catalogue as a wrap up step for each engagement.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 13/10/2021 11:27 pm, Seth Earley wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts Robert.  We have gone through many iterations of methodology development, harvesting of best practices, building out templates and reusable deliverables.  The challenge is that as people come and go, there is still a great deal of tacit knowledge about these artefacts and IP that make it difficult to socialize effectively with new people coming on board. Approaches evolve, teams have their specific take on the approaches and client needs change or vary from engagement to engagement. 

 

Over 25+ years of delivering projects and programs, there is a significant amount of IP “in the archives” and without a function to specifically manage the IP, (responsibility has been with delivery operations but immediate staffing and client priorities have left this lower on the list), it can be a challenge to continually refresh.

 

My current remit is to package services in a few areas to make it easier to sell and deliver engagements in order to scale.  Much of my work in prior years has been focused on new and emerging areas.  But this work of productization is about our high ROI engagements that solve the problems that most organizations find intractable or evergreen.  It’s the blocking and tackling to reduce friction around information flows, install governance and metrics and improve data quality, resulting in greater efficiency and effectiveness whether for an external customer experience or internal supporting processes.  (All “motherhood and apple pie” as they say <smile>)   

 

For the folks who responded off line, if you have not heard from me, feel free to ping me again.  I am trying to respond to all and set up conversations as appropriate but may have missed some responses. (You can copy my assistant Carolyn.Southwick@... if you send me a note. That way she will help make sure these don’t fall through the cracks)

 

 

Seth

 

Cell: 781-820-8080

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert M. Taylor via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:31 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Productization of services

 

Beyond his appeal for people ... Seth's question is very, very interesting. I find it's a really common case that in an 'unimproved' organisation (pre-KM!) it's the norm that there have been many instances of different classes of activity (e.g. similar projects), but that each one exists separately - almost from start-to-finish in a bubble. It's very much what we want to do to look across that experience and distil the 'best' for sharing and re-use - - and that's building organisational capability.

I find what often happens is that someone makes a stab at it based on very few examples - maybe just their own experience or perhaps with one or two colleagues who join in. Then you have a target for people to fire at - and people find it far easier to point out the flaws and improvements in something rather than create it. At that point there needs to be the impetus both to try out the proposal in practice and at the same time keep it open for revision from all the feedback. Doing both together is tough because usually either the power structure just presses fwd with what it has come up with, bullet-proof, or else there is eternal inertia and theorising with nobody willing to try anything practically until it is all agreed (which may never come).

The essential problem is that the case history is highly unlikely to be in any form sufficiently structured to enable very much extraction from it at a data level - - you're going to have to deal with it symbolically, socially and practically.

Well, I find that very interesting.


Re: Hidden Seams: Auditing Knowledge, Information & Communication - 25 November 2021 #webinar #audit

Patrick Lambe
 

Thanks for this Matt, I am looking forward to it. 

For those of you interested in a deeper dive into knowledge auditing, I’ll be running a week long intensive online course in January together with my colleagues - early bird rates expire at the end of this month - more information at https://www.straitsknowledgedigital.com/kaudit_masterclass_jan22.html

Best

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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


On 14 Oct 2021, at 5:46 PM, Matt Moore <matt@...> wrote:

More info & RSVP:
https://www.meetup.com/Information-Innovation-UTS/events/281418241/

The disciplines of knowledge management, information management and
corporate communications have all developed tools to assess
organisations, often known as “audits”. While these techniques have
developed separately, and have had different histories and drivers,
they often overlap in the behaviors they target and techniques they
use. This session investigates:
- How the the traditions of communication, information and knowledge
audits developed
- Similarities and differences between them
- What practitioners from these different disciples can learn from each other

Patrick Lambe is a globally recognised knowledge management
practitioner who was originally trained in Information and Library
Science. He arrived in KM via a second career in training and
development, and has been based in Singapore for three decades.
Patrick is the author of Organising Knowledge: Taxonomies, Knowledge
and Organisation Effectiveness (Oxford: Chandos 2007), and co-author
with Nick Milton of The Knowledge Manager's Handbook 2nd ed. (London:
Kogan Page 2019), which won CILIP UK's Knowledge and Information
Management Award 2019 - Information Resources Print Category. Patrick
is currently working on a major book on Knowledge Auditing and
Knowledge Mapping.

Stephen Bounds is an Information and Knowledge Management Specialist
with a wide range of experience across the government and private
sectors. He is Executive, Information Management at Cordelta, a
professional services firm based in Canberra, Australia. With over 20
years of experience in delivering Information Management, Knowledge
Management and Information Technology solutions, Stephen has a
sophisticated understanding of technology tools and platforms,
including how to avoid common pitfalls and maximise organisational
benefits. He is an active participant on global KM community lists,
and a passionate advocate for evidence-based and reason-based
practice.

More speakers to be announced!







Hidden Seams: Auditing Knowledge, Information & Communication - 25 November 2021 #webinar #audit

Matt Moore
 

More info & RSVP:
https://www.meetup.com/Information-Innovation-UTS/events/281418241/

The disciplines of knowledge management, information management and
corporate communications have all developed tools to assess
organisations, often known as “audits”. While these techniques have
developed separately, and have had different histories and drivers,
they often overlap in the behaviors they target and techniques they
use. This session investigates:
- How the the traditions of communication, information and knowledge
audits developed
- Similarities and differences between them
- What practitioners from these different disciples can learn from each other

Patrick Lambe is a globally recognised knowledge management
practitioner who was originally trained in Information and Library
Science. He arrived in KM via a second career in training and
development, and has been based in Singapore for three decades.
Patrick is the author of Organising Knowledge: Taxonomies, Knowledge
and Organisation Effectiveness (Oxford: Chandos 2007), and co-author
with Nick Milton of The Knowledge Manager's Handbook 2nd ed. (London:
Kogan Page 2019), which won CILIP UK's Knowledge and Information
Management Award 2019 - Information Resources Print Category. Patrick
is currently working on a major book on Knowledge Auditing and
Knowledge Mapping.

Stephen Bounds is an Information and Knowledge Management Specialist
with a wide range of experience across the government and private
sectors. He is Executive, Information Management at Cordelta, a
professional services firm based in Canberra, Australia. With over 20
years of experience in delivering Information Management, Knowledge
Management and Information Technology solutions, Stephen has a
sophisticated understanding of technology tools and platforms,
including how to avoid common pitfalls and maximise organisational
benefits. He is an active participant on global KM community lists,
and a passionate advocate for evidence-based and reason-based
practice.

More speakers to be announced!


Re: Productization of services #consulting #jobs

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Seth,

In that case, you may find it useful to draw on the experiences of others who have productised services before. Couple of interesting resources:

 Specifically, it is notable that consulting firms tends to only have success in productising highly repeatable methods (such as audits) where:

Virtually the same audit approach applies to all clients. Substantial knowledge resources support audits, including checklists (designed both to ensure that a complete approach is taken and to focus attention on critical issues) and authoritative pronouncements (to guide auditors).

General consulting resources tend to be only occasionally reused due to the necessity to adapt and tailor approaches to the specific client situation, which can make any effort to standardise them uneconomic. According to these articles, KPMG has instead focused on a layered approach to content, where methodologies are subsidiary to more strategic "top points of view" and drawn upon rather than explicitly offered as products:

KPMG supplements this content repository by enterprise social management that focuses on "the ability to secure a new client quickly, connecting ... people with expertise that might not otherwise have been found". But of course, the outputs will still be bespoke consulting and don't represent a true productisation effort.

If you have identified a genuine opportunity for productisation (à la audits), then you will be following the same general processes as any product offering. Typically something like:

  1. Understand market trends and consumer drivers
  2. Segment your market and identify a product or product cluster to be used to serve each target market
  3. Assess competitive products and define your unique value proposition
  4. Set revenue and cost targets for each product and segment, both individually and in aggregate
  5. Map costs against impact on client outcomes to identify standardisation and optimisation opportunities
  6. Develop your product platforms and “smart differentiation” based on client needs. For a consulting service this means:
    • standardising and/or modularising methods and deliverables
    • evaluating the marginal benefit of offering multiple variations and/or bespoke customisation
  7. Release and promote market offering (NB: costs of developing collateral to support promotion should have been factored in above)
  8. Review business outcomes and analyse cost-benefit of product lines
  9. Go to step 1

It's fair to say that productising in the IM/KM space (outside of technology platforms) is challenging, simply because the work required rarely scales predictably or linearly. A fairly small organisation might have a massive tangle of systems, whereas a large company might have a scalable but simple business model. One of your challenges will be finding a sweet spot that offers reliable margins while being usable for a broad enough volume of organisations, or pricing in a way that scales usefully without being too complex to understand.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 14/10/2021 2:17 am, Seth Earley wrote:

Thanks Stephen.  As I say, we do have the methodologies.  We staff projects with senior people (send a note if folks are interested in freelance opportunities) and use approaches that have been built over the years.  So we don’t need to go spelunking into our repositories.  Yes, we have a standard taxonomy and content model that is used to classify and organize content.  For this project we are taking an end to end view – from messaging through delivery.  It is packaging the various components.

 

Seth

 

Cell: 781-820-8080

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 11:06 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Productization of services

 

Hi Seth,

If I may venture an opinion, it seems that your biggest gap is really robust knowledge about your knowledge.

Do you have a standardised taxonomy that describes your IP? Off the top of my head I can think of a few facets that might be useful:

  • Basics
    • Internal method name (unique)
    • Client-facing terms used
    • Summary description
    • Creation date (if known)
    • Last utilised date (if known)
  • Strategic fit (text, possibly keyworded)
    • Utility (attainable objectives)
    • Typical goals and success metrics from past usage
    • Recommended or required technologies
    • Required role participants & skills
    • Indications and contraindications for use (ie culture, norms and values likely to lead to success or failure)
  • Challenge of implementation (star rating?)
    • Consulting budget
    • Staff time investment
    • Complexity of methods
    • Minimum maturity level
    • Trust requirements
  • History
    • Document / artefact repository links
    • List of past projects using the IP
    • Staff involved in creation, refinement, or use
    • Links to other versions / variants
    • Commentary, FAQs, lessons learned, etc

Presumably you don't have the resources to manually review and classify all 20+ years of resources, of course! Depending on volume and value, it might be worth using an auto-classifier AI as a starting point.

Even without any automated system, just cataloguing your highest value IP would be a valuable starting point for gaining better insights, control, and refinement over effective use and reuse of your IP. Over time, you could build in processes that would progressively gradually improve the quality of your IP catalogue as a wrap up step for each engagement.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 13/10/2021 11:27 pm, Seth Earley wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts Robert.  We have gone through many iterations of methodology development, harvesting of best practices, building out templates and reusable deliverables.  The challenge is that as people come and go, there is still a great deal of tacit knowledge about these artefacts and IP that make it difficult to socialize effectively with new people coming on board. Approaches evolve, teams have their specific take on the approaches and client needs change or vary from engagement to engagement. 

 

Over 25+ years of delivering projects and programs, there is a significant amount of IP “in the archives” and without a function to specifically manage the IP, (responsibility has been with delivery operations but immediate staffing and client priorities have left this lower on the list), it can be a challenge to continually refresh.

 

My current remit is to package services in a few areas to make it easier to sell and deliver engagements in order to scale.  Much of my work in prior years has been focused on new and emerging areas.  But this work of productization is about our high ROI engagements that solve the problems that most organizations find intractable or evergreen.  It’s the blocking and tackling to reduce friction around information flows, install governance and metrics and improve data quality, resulting in greater efficiency and effectiveness whether for an external customer experience or internal supporting processes.  (All “motherhood and apple pie” as they say <smile>)   

 

For the folks who responded off line, if you have not heard from me, feel free to ping me again.  I am trying to respond to all and set up conversations as appropriate but may have missed some responses. (You can copy my assistant Carolyn.Southwick@... if you send me a note. That way she will help make sure these don’t fall through the cracks)

 

 

Seth

 

Cell: 781-820-8080

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert M. Taylor via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:31 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Productization of services

 

Beyond his appeal for people ... Seth's question is very, very interesting. I find it's a really common case that in an 'unimproved' organisation (pre-KM!) it's the norm that there have been many instances of different classes of activity (e.g. similar projects), but that each one exists separately - almost from start-to-finish in a bubble. It's very much what we want to do to look across that experience and distil the 'best' for sharing and re-use - - and that's building organisational capability.

I find what often happens is that someone makes a stab at it based on very few examples - maybe just their own experience or perhaps with one or two colleagues who join in. Then you have a target for people to fire at - and people find it far easier to point out the flaws and improvements in something rather than create it. At that point there needs to be the impetus both to try out the proposal in practice and at the same time keep it open for revision from all the feedback. Doing both together is tough because usually either the power structure just presses fwd with what it has come up with, bullet-proof, or else there is eternal inertia and theorising with nobody willing to try anything practically until it is all agreed (which may never come).

The essential problem is that the case history is highly unlikely to be in any form sufficiently structured to enable very much extraction from it at a data level - - you're going to have to deal with it symbolically, socially and practically.

Well, I find that very interesting.


Re: Productization of services #consulting #jobs

Seth Earley
 

Thanks Stephen.  As I say, we do have the methodologies.  We staff projects with senior people (send a note if folks are interested in freelance opportunities) and use approaches that have been built over the years.  So we don’t need to go spelunking into our repositories.  Yes, we have a standard taxonomy and content model that is used to classify and organize content.  For this project we are taking an end to end view – from messaging through delivery.  It is packaging the various components.

 

Seth

 

Cell: 781-820-8080

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 11:06 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Productization of services

 

Hi Seth,

If I may venture an opinion, it seems that your biggest gap is really robust knowledge about your knowledge.

Do you have a standardised taxonomy that describes your IP? Off the top of my head I can think of a few facets that might be useful:

  • Basics
    • Internal method name (unique)
    • Client-facing terms used
    • Summary description
    • Creation date (if known)
    • Last utilised date (if known)
  • Strategic fit (text, possibly keyworded)
    • Utility (attainable objectives)
    • Typical goals and success metrics from past usage
    • Recommended or required technologies
    • Required role participants & skills
    • Indications and contraindications for use (ie culture, norms and values likely to lead to success or failure)
  • Challenge of implementation (star rating?)
    • Consulting budget
    • Staff time investment
    • Complexity of methods
    • Minimum maturity level
    • Trust requirements
  • History
    • Document / artefact repository links
    • List of past projects using the IP
    • Staff involved in creation, refinement, or use
    • Links to other versions / variants
    • Commentary, FAQs, lessons learned, etc

Presumably you don't have the resources to manually review and classify all 20+ years of resources, of course! Depending on volume and value, it might be worth using an auto-classifier AI as a starting point.

Even without any automated system, just cataloguing your highest value IP would be a valuable starting point for gaining better insights, control, and refinement over effective use and reuse of your IP. Over time, you could build in processes that would progressively gradually improve the quality of your IP catalogue as a wrap up step for each engagement.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

On 13/10/2021 11:27 pm, Seth Earley wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts Robert.  We have gone through many iterations of methodology development, harvesting of best practices, building out templates and reusable deliverables.  The challenge is that as people come and go, there is still a great deal of tacit knowledge about these artefacts and IP that make it difficult to socialize effectively with new people coming on board. Approaches evolve, teams have their specific take on the approaches and client needs change or vary from engagement to engagement. 

 

Over 25+ years of delivering projects and programs, there is a significant amount of IP “in the archives” and without a function to specifically manage the IP, (responsibility has been with delivery operations but immediate staffing and client priorities have left this lower on the list), it can be a challenge to continually refresh.

 

My current remit is to package services in a few areas to make it easier to sell and deliver engagements in order to scale.  Much of my work in prior years has been focused on new and emerging areas.  But this work of productization is about our high ROI engagements that solve the problems that most organizations find intractable or evergreen.  It’s the blocking and tackling to reduce friction around information flows, install governance and metrics and improve data quality, resulting in greater efficiency and effectiveness whether for an external customer experience or internal supporting processes.  (All “motherhood and apple pie” as they say <smile>)   

 

For the folks who responded off line, if you have not heard from me, feel free to ping me again.  I am trying to respond to all and set up conversations as appropriate but may have missed some responses. (You can copy my assistant Carolyn.Southwick@... if you send me a note. That way she will help make sure these don’t fall through the cracks)

 

 

Seth

 

Cell: 781-820-8080

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert M. Taylor via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:31 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Productization of services

 

Beyond his appeal for people ... Seth's question is very, very interesting. I find it's a really common case that in an 'unimproved' organisation (pre-KM!) it's the norm that there have been many instances of different classes of activity (e.g. similar projects), but that each one exists separately - almost from start-to-finish in a bubble. It's very much what we want to do to look across that experience and distil the 'best' for sharing and re-use - - and that's building organisational capability.

I find what often happens is that someone makes a stab at it based on very few examples - maybe just their own experience or perhaps with one or two colleagues who join in. Then you have a target for people to fire at - and people find it far easier to point out the flaws and improvements in something rather than create it. At that point there needs to be the impetus both to try out the proposal in practice and at the same time keep it open for revision from all the feedback. Doing both together is tough because usually either the power structure just presses fwd with what it has come up with, bullet-proof, or else there is eternal inertia and theorising with nobody willing to try anything practically until it is all agreed (which may never come).

The essential problem is that the case history is highly unlikely to be in any form sufficiently structured to enable very much extraction from it at a data level - - you're going to have to deal with it symbolically, socially and practically.

Well, I find that very interesting.


Re: Productization of services #consulting #jobs

Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Seth,

If I may venture an opinion, it seems that your biggest gap is really robust knowledge about your knowledge.

Do you have a standardised taxonomy that describes your IP? Off the top of my head I can think of a few facets that might be useful:

  • Basics
    • Internal method name (unique)
    • Client-facing terms used
    • Summary description
    • Creation date (if known)
    • Last utilised date (if known)

  • Strategic fit (text, possibly keyworded)
    • Utility (attainable objectives)
    • Typical goals and success metrics from past usage
    • Recommended or required technologies
    • Required role participants & skills
    • Indications and contraindications for use (ie culture, norms and values likely to lead to success or failure)

  • Challenge of implementation (star rating?)
    • Consulting budget
    • Staff time investment
    • Complexity of methods
    • Minimum maturity level
    • Trust requirements

  • History
    • Document / artefact repository links
    • List of past projects using the IP
    • Staff involved in creation, refinement, or use
    • Links to other versions / variants
    • Commentary, FAQs, lessons learned, etc

Presumably you don't have the resources to manually review and classify all 20+ years of resources, of course! Depending on volume and value, it might be worth using an auto-classifier AI as a starting point.

Even without any automated system, just cataloguing your highest value IP would be a valuable starting point for gaining better insights, control, and refinement over effective use and reuse of your IP. Over time, you could build in processes that would progressively gradually improve the quality of your IP catalogue as a wrap up step for each engagement.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 13/10/2021 11:27 pm, Seth Earley wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts Robert.  We have gone through many iterations of methodology development, harvesting of best practices, building out templates and reusable deliverables.  The challenge is that as people come and go, there is still a great deal of tacit knowledge about these artefacts and IP that make it difficult to socialize effectively with new people coming on board. Approaches evolve, teams have their specific take on the approaches and client needs change or vary from engagement to engagement. 

 

Over 25+ years of delivering projects and programs, there is a significant amount of IP “in the archives” and without a function to specifically manage the IP, (responsibility has been with delivery operations but immediate staffing and client priorities have left this lower on the list), it can be a challenge to continually refresh.

 

My current remit is to package services in a few areas to make it easier to sell and deliver engagements in order to scale.  Much of my work in prior years has been focused on new and emerging areas.  But this work of productization is about our high ROI engagements that solve the problems that most organizations find intractable or evergreen.  It’s the blocking and tackling to reduce friction around information flows, install governance and metrics and improve data quality, resulting in greater efficiency and effectiveness whether for an external customer experience or internal supporting processes.  (All “motherhood and apple pie” as they say <smile>)   

 

For the folks who responded off line, if you have not heard from me, feel free to ping me again.  I am trying to respond to all and set up conversations as appropriate but may have missed some responses. (You can copy my assistant Carolyn.Southwick@... if you send me a note. That way she will help make sure these don’t fall through the cracks)

 

 

Seth

 

Cell: 781-820-8080

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert M. Taylor via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:31 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Productization of services

 

Beyond his appeal for people ... Seth's question is very, very interesting. I find it's a really common case that in an 'unimproved' organisation (pre-KM!) it's the norm that there have been many instances of different classes of activity (e.g. similar projects), but that each one exists separately - almost from start-to-finish in a bubble. It's very much what we want to do to look across that experience and distil the 'best' for sharing and re-use - - and that's building organisational capability.

I find what often happens is that someone makes a stab at it based on very few examples - maybe just their own experience or perhaps with one or two colleagues who join in. Then you have a target for people to fire at - and people find it far easier to point out the flaws and improvements in something rather than create it. At that point there needs to be the impetus both to try out the proposal in practice and at the same time keep it open for revision from all the feedback. Doing both together is tough because usually either the power structure just presses fwd with what it has come up with, bullet-proof, or else there is eternal inertia and theorising with nobody willing to try anything practically until it is all agreed (which may never come).

The essential problem is that the case history is highly unlikely to be in any form sufficiently structured to enable very much extraction from it at a data level - - you're going to have to deal with it symbolically, socially and practically.

Well, I find that very interesting.


Re: KM Platforms #tools

Jay Liebowitz
 

Thank you everyone for your helpful replies. Wishing you all well. Best regards. Jay


Re: Productization of services #consulting #jobs

Seth Earley
 

Thanks for your thoughts Robert.  We have gone through many iterations of methodology development, harvesting of best practices, building out templates and reusable deliverables.  The challenge is that as people come and go, there is still a great deal of tacit knowledge about these artefacts and IP that make it difficult to socialize effectively with new people coming on board. Approaches evolve, teams have their specific take on the approaches and client needs change or vary from engagement to engagement. 

 

Over 25+ years of delivering projects and programs, there is a significant amount of IP “in the archives” and without a function to specifically manage the IP, (responsibility has been with delivery operations but immediate staffing and client priorities have left this lower on the list), it can be a challenge to continually refresh.

 

My current remit is to package services in a few areas to make it easier to sell and deliver engagements in order to scale.  Much of my work in prior years has been focused on new and emerging areas.  But this work of productization is about our high ROI engagements that solve the problems that most organizations find intractable or evergreen.  It’s the blocking and tackling to reduce friction around information flows, install governance and metrics and improve data quality, resulting in greater efficiency and effectiveness whether for an external customer experience or internal supporting processes.  (All “motherhood and apple pie” as they say <smile>)   

 

For the folks who responded off line, if you have not heard from me, feel free to ping me again.  I am trying to respond to all and set up conversations as appropriate but may have missed some responses. (You can copy my assistant Carolyn.Southwick@... if you send me a note. That way she will help make sure these don’t fall through the cracks)

 

 

Seth

 

Cell: 781-820-8080

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert M. Taylor via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:31 AM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Productization of services

 

Beyond his appeal for people ... Seth's question is very, very interesting. I find it's a really common case that in an 'unimproved' organisation (pre-KM!) it's the norm that there have been many instances of different classes of activity (e.g. similar projects), but that each one exists separately - almost from start-to-finish in a bubble. It's very much what we want to do to look across that experience and distil the 'best' for sharing and re-use - - and that's building organisational capability.

I find what often happens is that someone makes a stab at it based on very few examples - maybe just their own experience or perhaps with one or two colleagues who join in. Then you have a target for people to fire at - and people find it far easier to point out the flaws and improvements in something rather than create it. At that point there needs to be the impetus both to try out the proposal in practice and at the same time keep it open for revision from all the feedback. Doing both together is tough because usually either the power structure just presses fwd with what it has come up with, bullet-proof, or else there is eternal inertia and theorising with nobody willing to try anything practically until it is all agreed (which may never come).

The essential problem is that the case history is highly unlikely to be in any form sufficiently structured to enable very much extraction from it at a data level - - you're going to have to deal with it symbolically, socially and practically.

Well, I find that very interesting.


Sharing an article I wrote: Three Social Competencies for Creating an Inspiring Environment and Culture #culture

Nirmala Palaniappan
 

Hi All,

Thought I’d share an article I published recently as it may be of interest to some of you here. Would be great to receive feedback and comments. Thank you.

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


Re: How do you measure successful knowledge sharing? #metrics #knowledge-sharing #value

Stan Garfield
 

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:23 AM, Jasper Lavertu wrote:
Do you have, by any chance, a good reference to a practical article/case where they describe how to conduct a social network analysis in a multinational organization?
Jasper, look under Resources in Social Network Analysis.


Re: How do you measure successful knowledge sharing? #metrics #knowledge-sharing #value

Yehuda Vansover
 

Wow! There are a lot of interesting things here to learn! Thank you all!

If I may say.. What about some practical examples that you can share from your experience? 

For example - to ask people if the knowledge they got from this meeting actually helped them? Did they now know something that they wouldn't know if this meeting wasn't exist? 
Ask them a true question - Would you like to have more meetings like that? or do you think it's waste of time?

I hope it was helpfull :)
Yehuda




‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 7 באוק׳ 2021 ב-17:20 מאת ‪Jasper Lavertu‬‏ <‪jlavertu@...‬‏>:‬

Hi All,

Wow, a lot of valuable ideas and suggestions so far.
@Maria, great suggestion to define goals and translate them to measurable KPIs. This is definitely a good starting point and something that we need to do, so thank you.

@Mohammad, thanks for sharing the link to the article (I have seen it before, in my search to solve my challenge, but still I appreciate it). And your 4-stage framework is very insightful and should be part of the solution. Part of the solution because from what I've learnt so far really tells me to also consider qualitative outcomes. 
Like the suggestions from @Dennis, @Keith and @Paul. I think these kinds of blended approaches (with a mix of quantitative and qualitative techniques) might be best to provide a complete (as far as possible) view of the outcome and impact of knowledge sharing. So, thank you Dennis, Keith and Paul.

I am also very interested in the suggestion of @Tom (thank you, Tom) regarding social network theory. Not only for this particular case, but also to analyse, visualize (and utilize) the existing (informal) networks.

@Daan, thank you for your suggestion. Especially the idea of measuring direct, indirect and secondary benefits is very compelling.

@Leif (and Stan), thanks for notifying me about your work (and sharing the hyperlinks). I have not read the book (yet), but based on the reviews it must be quite interesting.

Thank you all for taking the time to reply and for the inspiration!


Re: KM Platforms #tools

Nick Milton
 

If by “top 3 to 5” you mean the most popular, then our survey data shows the following:

 

Technology brand

Number of users 2020

% 2020

%2017

%2014

SharePoint customised

98

47%

48%

50%

SharePoint "out of the box"

96

46%

35%

39%

In-house tools

73

35%

28%

28%

Yammer

44

21%

21%

16%

SAP

27

13%

10%

11%

Confluence

24

12%

11%

5%

MS suite

24

12%

1%

1%

SalesForce

19

9%

7%

8%

Drupal

16

8%

5%

5%

Jive

13

6%

7%

5%

MediaWiki

11

5%

4%

7%

Lotus

9

4%

3%

9%

Alfresco

8

4%

1%

4%

ServiceNow

7

3%

1%

0%

OpenText/LiveLink

6

3%

5%

7%

IBM Social Content Management

5

2%

1%

4%

Documentum

3

1%

1%

0%

Oracle

2

1%

2%

1%

Other (please specify)

62

30%

28%

20%

 

The “Other” field includes the following:

 

Appian, Documentum: Atlassian Jira, Liferay, MS Dynamics 365 (CRM): BBS :Blogtronix:  Bloomfire: Catálogos bibliográficos: CISCO: Customised Wiki from early 2000...: customized application: DRIVE: edoc2: ELGG: Exo platform and dspace for knowledge resources: Exo,dspace: FileSite: G Suite: IHS Markit Goldfire: iManage: iManage: iManage, First: IMAS: Imperia; OfficeNet 2: Interact, InMagic Presto, Google Groups: IQxCloud: Ivanti ITSM toolset: Jalios, Lync (for instant messaging): KA Synthesis: Knowledge Mill: Learning management system: Liferay: MangoApps, Bandcamp: Miro, GitLab: Mobile Learning: Moodle: Nintex - Promapp: no professional software: No software platform: No usamos: None of the above: None of the above: Not to be disclosed: Odoo & Google Site: OnBase, ProjectWise: OneNote: propia: Red social empresarial Alma: Redmine: Redmine y Redmine Wiki, WhatsApp, Mail: RightAnswers, BMC ITSM/SmartIT: Shared Drives: Shibumi, Proactive Office: Siemens Teamcenter, Vimeo: SINEQUA: Sinequa, Teams: Skype, Defense Collaboration Service: Tableau: TeamConnect: Telligent: Trello, google, chat: Verint: We are int he process of installing out of the box share point.: web, social media: Workplace: Zoho:

 

If by “Top 3 to 5” you mean “Best”, then you need to define what these traditional KM activities are.

 

From the survey, the figure below shows the most popular technology usages under the KM umbrella, and I suspect it would be difficult to find any technology which is “best” at more than 2 or 3 of these at any one time.

 

Nick

 

 

 

Hi everyone:  I was interested in getting your opinion on what you consider to be the top 3-5 KM platforms for traditional KM activities.  I welcome your thoughts based on your experiences.  Thanks.  Jay Liebowitz

Jay Liebowitz, D.Sc.
Visiting Professor and MSBA Program Co-Director
Seton Hall University




Re: Productization of services #consulting #jobs

Robert M. Taylor
 

Beyond his appeal for people ... Seth's question is very, very interesting. I find it's a really common case that in an 'unimproved' organisation (pre-KM!) it's the norm that there have been many instances of different classes of activity (e.g. similar projects), but that each one exists separately - almost from start-to-finish in a bubble. It's very much what we want to do to look across that experience and distil the 'best' for sharing and re-use - - and that's building organisational capability.

I find what often happens is that someone makes a stab at it based on very few examples - maybe just their own experience or perhaps with one or two colleagues who join in. Then you have a target for people to fire at - and people find it far easier to point out the flaws and improvements in something rather than create it. At that point there needs to be the impetus both to try out the proposal in practice and at the same time keep it open for revision from all the feedback. Doing both together is tough because usually either the power structure just presses fwd with what it has come up with, bullet-proof, or else there is eternal inertia and theorising with nobody willing to try anything practically until it is all agreed (which may never come).

The essential problem is that the case history is highly unlikely to be in any form sufficiently structured to enable very much extraction from it at a data level - - you're going to have to deal with it symbolically, socially and practically.

Well, I find that very interesting.


Re: KM Platforms #tools

Robert M. Taylor
 

So for traditional KM activities I'm going to take learning from experience, innovation, knowledge sharing and applying best practice (we all know what we mean - I find the contesting of that term tiresome). Straight away I'm going to YouTube and Wikipedia for knowledge sharing.

I'm esp impressed how YouTube has engaged the discretionary effort of so many people to voluntarily record and share their know how about the widest range of topics. There's something to learn from that, altho most of us work at a smaller scale than global and these ideas don't always catch up below internet-size.

For three of the four, learning, innovation and applying, I'm going to say the biggest platforms are time (free time, slack), budget, relaxed boundaries and bringing people together. So often I think time and budgets and where people have to be, what they have to be doing and how they're supposed to be doing are so constrained that all but the essential aspects of these elements are driven out: we're 100% in 'exploit' mode with little scope for 'explore', which is what these things need.

I think the whole world of standards and professional bodies has contributed a great deal to best practices, but I say that with caution because whilst some are evidence-based, some are just opinions writ large. Again, global platforms that we can learn from and somewhat emulate at smaller scale.

The big platforms I focus on are projects (first and foremost - but there again I've overwhelmingly worked in project-based environments), business processes, the management process, policies (in so far as they have an actual effect and are not just words), roles & skills, and, of course subject matter content and esp information: I'm pretty clear that KM is not the same as IM and equally clear that in KM we use IM/document management as a key platform.

If, on the other hand, your question was about what would more help the knowledge manager themself ... well, that was a closing thought that I haven't concluded on yet!


Re: KM Platforms #tools

Retha Prinsloo
 

I tend to agree with Jay wrt technology as an enabler.
My primary experiece is with Microsoft SharePoint and Yammer. Although one can do very much with SP as it is a development platform, it all falls flat if the Term Store for both controlled vocabularies or entrerprise keywords are not maintained, when content is not harvested & curated and when the organisation does not dedicate budget or KM human resources to KM solutions like dedicated portals, indexes, lists and catalogues.
Another key skill required on the IT side is proper use of the search engine aʼnd search queries to leverage the power of search, e.g. to exclude certain content from results oŕ to harness the synonyms, acronyms & abbreviations that can be included in the Term Store.


Re: KM Platforms #tools

Alison Jones
 

Hi Jay,

It depends what you mean by "top". Best or most used?

I've yet to work in an organisation which has a budget for a specific knowledge management platform. I am convinced that how the platform is set up, how the records in the platform are described etc is so much more important than the platform itself. Too many platforms will quite happily accept garbage in and as the idiom goes "garbage in, garbage out". Anyone who claims their platform will instantly manage your knowledge is a charlatan!

On that basis, I would say that SharePoint has to rank as a top knowledge management platform. It is widely available for a relatively reasonable cost and can be utilised for any number of activities (none of them perfectly but all of them in a good enough manner). If it is set up by a competent knowledge manager, it will go a long way to being the technological basis for traditional (and even some non traditional) knowledge management activities.

(And for me, technology is always just a KM tool. Relationships, trust building, curiosity and people are at the core of knowledge management. Easily said, really hard to do!)

Kind regards,
Alison

Alison Jones
Knowledge Manager
________________________________________
Geoscape Australia
Unit 6, 113 Canberra Avenue
Griffith
ACT
2603
(02) 6260 9031
Alison.Jones@...
www.geoscape.com.au
Create a free account
This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of PSMA Australia Ltd trading as Geoscape Australia ABN 23 089 912 710. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorised to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.  All outgoing emails and attached files are virus scanned, but we do not represent that this email and any attached files are free from computer viruses or other defects. Further, we do not accept any liability for any damage caused by this email or attachments. 

-----Original Message-----
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jay Liebowitz via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2021 4:51 AM
To: main@sikm.groups.io
Cc: stangarfield@...
Subject: [SIKM] KM Platforms

Hi everyone: I was interested in getting your opinion on what you consider to be the top 3-5 KM platforms for traditional KM activities. I welcome your thoughts based on your experiences. Thanks. Jay Liebowitz

Jay Liebowitz, D.Sc.
Visiting Professor and MSBA Program Co-Director Seton Hall University





Re: KM Platforms #tools

Raquel Balceiro
 

Hi, Jay,
At Petrobras, we have been using SharePoint and other Microsoft tools, such as Teams 
(for synchronous meetings and discussion forums).

Additionally, we use Facebook's Workplace as a space to
disseminate curated information.
The latter presents some difficulties, as we deal with the creation of a folksonomy.
A taxonomy would be much more appropriate. Also we have some difficulty in recovering
old information, since it works as a news feed.

Raquel
Raquel Balceiro

Academy of Corporate Governance, Compliance and Integrity

Petrobras

Brazil


Em ter., 12 de out. de 2021 às 14:50, Jay Liebowitz <jay.liebowitz8@...> escreveu:

Hi everyone:  I was interested in getting your opinion on what you consider to be the top 3-5 KM platforms for traditional KM activities.  I welcome your thoughts based on your experiences.  Thanks.  Jay Liebowitz

Jay Liebowitz, D.Sc.
Visiting Professor and MSBA Program Co-Director
Seton Hall University





Re: KM Platforms #tools

Mohammad Hasanzadeh
 

Jay,
First of all I am very happy to meet you here. This is because I have started my investigation on knowledge management with your book “ Knowledge Management: Learning from Knowledge Engineering” when I was a young PhD candidate may be on 2004. Since then, I am working on KM as a trainer, consultant’ and author. 
My experience indicates that platforms such as SharePoint have caught much attentions from organizations. Platforms such as Content Management Systems and even Shared Content Developing Platforms were popular in organizations. Beside these international applications, many domestic system such as KMgate or so have been developed and helped enterprises to manage their organizational knowledge assets.
 Emergence of social media has revolutionized the industry and introduced a modern and easy-to-run platform of knowledge sharing. Thus tremendous and game-changing development persuaded the managers to employ ESN platforms which are very popular and have good inter-operability with BI and other analytic applications.
Regards
Mohammad


On Tuesday, October 12, 2021, Jay Liebowitz <jay.liebowitz8@...> wrote:
Hi everyone:  I was interested in getting your opinion on what you consider to be the top 3-5 KM platforms for traditional KM activities.  I welcome your thoughts based on your experiences.  Thanks.  Jay Liebowitz

Jay Liebowitz, D.Sc.
Visiting Professor and MSBA Program Co-Director
Seton Hall University






--
With best wishes
====================
Mohammad Hassanzadeh (Ph.D.)
Professor, Knowledge and Information Science (Knowledge Management)
Vice-Chancellor for Research and Technology Affairs, Faculty of Management and Economics, TMU
Editor-in-chief, Journal of Information Management. stim.qom.ac.ir
Editor-in-chief, International Journal of Digital Content Management (IJDCM). dcm.atu.ac.ir
Managing editor, International Journal of Knowledge Processing Studies (IJKPS) kps.artahub.ir 
Managing editor, International Journal of Learning Spaces Studies (IJLLS) lss.artahub.ir 
Head and Faculty member, Knowledge and Information science Dept.
Faculty of Management and Economics
Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Knowledge Management Senior Consultant


Re: KM Platforms #tools

Dan Ranta
 

Hi Jay.  Until I see something more effective (and I have not obviously seen everything...no one has) than what we did at GE, I will say that what we created as a team (with great customer input) at GE is the best I have ever seen.

Dan

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:50 AM Jay Liebowitz <jay.liebowitz8@...> wrote:
Hi everyone:  I was interested in getting your opinion on what you consider to be the top 3-5 KM platforms for traditional KM activities.  I welcome your thoughts based on your experiences.  Thanks.  Jay Liebowitz

Jay Liebowitz, D.Sc.
Visiting Professor and MSBA Program Co-Director
Seton Hall University






--
Daniel Ranta
Mobile:  603 384 3308


KM Platforms #tools

Jay Liebowitz
 

Hi everyone: I was interested in getting your opinion on what you consider to be the top 3-5 KM platforms for traditional KM activities. I welcome your thoughts based on your experiences. Thanks. Jay Liebowitz

Jay Liebowitz, D.Sc.
Visiting Professor and MSBA Program Co-Director
Seton Hall University

141 - 160 of 9605