I agree…both in parallel, or what I like to refer to as a “balanced approach”. I also think the term “system of record” conveys a more rigid, structured and systematic process than I refer

Hi, Neil, I have sometimes found it useful to differentiate based on the way in which people can join a community - e.g. can anybody join or does it need some kind of approval (eg. by an

Stan, My primary impetus for asking is that my leadership (in Army Medicine) insist on using for communities for purposeful, non voluntary activities. They are more properly termed initiative groups

Hi Murray, Yes you'll have both systems of record to systems of engagement running in parallel and the graphic ( not mine ) was to point to this shift which allows for combination of structure &

Why do we have to shift from systems of record to systems ofengagement? Why not have both in parallel? I can see that there willalways be a need for systems of record and I can value in systems

Thanks for the shout-out Kate. I agree that getting hung up on different “communities of this or that” can take a lot of effort that doesn’t yield anything much. In Digital Habitats we

Thanks Kate for sharing this work Richard Vines

Hi, SIKM Leaders I agree with John. Form follows function. In a research project I did with Larry Prusak for the Gates Foundation, we identified four primary "objectives" for communities: 1.

We collectively call our "communities' practice areas but do distinguish between Communities of Practice and Communities of Interest - its not semantics. The design of the sites and the expectation of

Hi, I put together a quick one slide overview of different types of collaborative groups from teams to crowdsourcing - referencing key thinkers/theorists/articulators of various models. Not

> What would you teach the next generation of KM Leaders? First, I would stop using the term knowledge management and start using systems of engagement that combines structure & information flow with

Very early in our KM journey, we got tired of debating the distinctions and trying to fit our communities into an outside definition. We decided to call them Knowledge Communities and structured them

I would ask them to answer these questions: If knowledge management is working really well for an organization, what does it look like, and how does it work? In your current (or most recent)

Neil, Thanks for asking the question. I used to differentiate between communities of practice and communities of interest, but I no longer find differentiating community types to be useful. So I

I'm leading a KM Masterclass (starts in January in Toronto - for more info see: http://www.institute.ischool.utoronto.ca/KM%20MasterClass.asp . Its aimed at the next-gen of KM Leaders - people who

All Various theorists (Wenger, St. Onge, others) have proposed different types of communities: communities of practice, interest, purpose, action, etc. I'm wondering if the KM community has reached

If the cost of entry into any community is too high few will enter. It is important to remember the upswing of "bring your own device" (byod) to work and mobile computing are relatively new. We

Good discussion folks, Agree with the overall sentiment that community sites are about "community" - a place the stimulates conversation & interaction between people (OK some processes that are

There have been some great comments in this thread. Here are a few more ideas. 1. Give communities names which help potential members understand what each community is about. Try to use easily

Neil, Totally agree with Nancy. Forget about an overall architecture (you can get back to that later), focus ont he language and topics that are important to the discipline of the network. We sit down