main@SIKM.groups.io

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

Well the philosopher in me would reject using the ontology word for ’names’, ontology relates to the nature of existence But yes different cultures have different names and those we tend to class

By Dave Snowden · #10714 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

I've seen ontological differences between what different companies call things. the greatest ontological differences I saw were between russian/eastern european power plants and western power

By Murray Jennex · #10713 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

That isn’t an ontological issue its a taxonomy and classification one Again, if you approach it differently, with high abstraction metadata and subsequent user patterning it isn’t difficult of

By Dave Snowden · #10712 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

I found that there were severe ontological issues as well as formatting of reports, etc. that are organizational specific that made this difficult...murray jennex

By Murray Jennex · #10711 ·

Re: Looking for a global benchmark on knowledge transfer #knowledge-retention #knowledge-transfer

yes, the utility industry is similar to nasa....murray

By Murray Jennex · #10710 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

It’s not especially difficult if you capture knowledge, at least in part, in micro-narrative form which gives you cultural contact as well. In our work we ‘incentivise’ that by replacing

By Dave Snowden · #10709 ·

Re: Looking for a global benchmark on knowledge transfer #knowledge-retention #knowledge-transfer

It is interesting - saw something similar in NASA The approach focuses on structure and curation rather than scalability of narrative (other than by tacit transfer) Prof Dave Snowden Director &

By Dave Snowden · #10708 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

I get what you are saying Dave but the what emerges in Scandinavia stays in Scandinavia I think is more reflective of the cultural aspect and specific organizational culture aspect of knowledge. I

By Murray Jennex · #10707 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

Just to chime in - there is a much wider issue with the use of ‘asset’ as language to describe anything based on human individual and capability. Remember a whole branch of early knowledge

By Dave Snowden · #10706 ·

Re: The AI view of KM #AI #art-of-KM

Quality of translating English to Hebrew: ChatGPT vs. Google translate. The first part of the attached file is a set of criteria for comparing the quality of translation - an excellent article

By Eli Miron · #10705 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

I think you misunderstood me on “magic” - I am not a fan of magic in management. I do think there is a lot of unacknowledged magical thinking (= bad thing) that goes on in knowledge management

By Patrick Lambe · #10704 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

We are probably splitting hairs here, as a long time project manager I view resources as assets so I am getting the impression you just don't like the word asset because of its many connotations and

By Murray Jennex · #10703 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

I agree with you Patrick. IMHO It’s best to use the definition used by the international accounting standards board IASC and /IFRS.

By Daan Boom · #10702 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

I get that this is challenging - the “knowledge as asset” language is very popular, has wide acceptance, and many of us have invested heavily in using it. It took me a few years of thinking

By Patrick Lambe · #10701 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

Being able to identify and ascribe management actions to something does not make it an asset, Murray. Nor do you need to call it an asset to apply management actions to it. The notions of ownership

By Patrick Lambe · #10700 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

sorry for accidently hitting the send button. The point I'm making is that doing something is better than doing nothing. I'm not sure what you are offering and expecting us to do. I do think a KM

By Murray Jennex · #10699 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

I don't know Patrick, I think you are going too far in your analogy. If knowledge is magic then what are we really doing? acting like ancient alchemists? I don't buy that. I have worked in

By Murray Jennex · #10698 ·

Re: Defining knowledge in your organisation: is it simple or hard? #definition

If a thing doesn’t look like an asset of the organisation, doesn’t behave like an asset of the organisation, cannot in fact be managed in the same way as assets, why do we want to call it an

By Patrick Lambe · #10697 ·

Re: Looking for a global benchmark on knowledge transfer #knowledge-retention #knowledge-transfer

Dear Martin, Tim, Murray, et al, KMI's Instructor John Hovell, besides teaching our CKM Workshop, also teaches a Certified Knowledge Specialist (CKS) course on Knowledge Transfer and Retention

By Douglas Weidner · #10696 ·

Re: Looking for a global benchmark on knowledge transfer #knowledge-retention #knowledge-transfer

Hi Bart, Building on Nick and Rupert’s points re ROCK, here is a 20 min video interview with Carla Newman, a one-time ROCK interviewer at Shell. Worth a watch – courtesy of a roundtable event

By Chris Collison · #10695 ·

Messages