[External]

On 14 Nov 2022, at 07:57, Dave Snowden via groups.io <snowded@...> wrote:

Well to be a contrary voice.  I think the APQC scales might be better termed a scale of ossification.  It’s also worth remembering that Nonaka failed to recognise Polanyi’s key point that no explicit knowledge can exist without a tacit component.    

To give a simple illustration.  Informal networks are far better than formal systems in knowledge discovery especially under conditions of uncertainty.  So a key measure of KM program success is the density and cross solo reach of informal networks.   Stage one is more resilient than stage four. 

Prof Dave Snowden

Cynefin Centre & Cognitive Edge

11 Pro

Please excuse predictive text errors and typos

On 14 Nov 2022, at 01:43, Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io <mdutoit@...> wrote:

Hi all, 

Thanks again for all your valuable inputs to help me solve this. I ended up adapting the APQC model and using your end state of value as key in assessing the knowledge.
What this means practically is that we identified key areas that the knowledge would be used for. In this particular case, we decided on 3 Objectives:
* Project Onboarding
* Problem Resolution (when problems arise in live and troubleshooting is required)
* Further Enhancements 

We will then assess the knowledge available to achieve each noted objective using the maturity model. (APQC I hope my slight adaptation is allowed).
(I was thinking of also categorising the knowledge as tacit and explicit so that targeted KM activities can be further enhanced to improve the maturity of the knowledge.)
<Knowledge Maturity.png>

I think it will work for us but welcome your thoughts and further input. 

<<Stage one is more resilient than stage four.>>

On 14 Nov 2022, at 4:00 AM, Dave Snowden via groups.io <snowded@...> wrote:

I’m going to write a blog post on this and Nancy’s four stages this week.  Aspects not additive would be my initial response.  But overall I think maturity models are flawed as a concept 

Prof Dave Snowden

Cynefin Centre & Cognitive Edge

11 Pro

Please excuse predictive text errors and typos

On 14 Nov 2022, at 02:50, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:

<<Stage one is more resilient than stage four.>>

That’s a very interesting observation Dave. 

Would this be better represented as an additive framework rather than a progression framework as in a traditional maturity model? i.e. All layers need to be in place for the knowledge ecosystem to function effectively? The balance of investment across the layers to be dependent on the contextual needs.

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 Nov 2022, at 2:57 AM, Dave Snowden via groups.io <snowded@...> wrote:

Well to be a contrary voice.  I think the APQC scales might be better termed a scale of ossification.  It’s also worth remembering that Nonaka failed to recognise Polanyi’s key point that no explicit knowledge can exist without a tacit component.    

To give a simple illustration.  Informal networks are far better than formal systems in knowledge discovery especially under conditions of uncertainty.  So a key measure of KM program success is the density and cross solo reach of informal networks.   Stage one is more resilient than stage four. 

Prof Dave Snowden

Cynefin Centre & Cognitive Edge

11 Pro

Please excuse predictive text errors and typos

On 14 Nov 2022, at 01:43, Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io <mdutoit@...> wrote:

Hi all, 

Thanks again for all your valuable inputs to help me solve this. I ended up adapting the APQC model and using your end state of value as key in assessing the knowledge.
What this means practically is that we identified key areas that the knowledge would be used for. In this particular case, we decided on 3 Objectives:
* Project Onboarding
* Problem Resolution (when problems arise in live and troubleshooting is required)
* Further Enhancements 

We will then assess the knowledge available to achieve each noted objective using the maturity model. (APQC I hope my slight adaptation is allowed).
(I was thinking of also categorising the knowledge as tacit and explicit so that targeted KM activities can be further enhanced to improve the maturity of the knowledge.)
<Knowledge Maturity.png>

I think it will work for us but welcome your thoughts and further input. 

On 14 Nov 2022, at 02:50, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:

<<Stage one is more resilient than stage four.>>

That’s a very interesting observation Dave. 

Would this be better represented as an additive framework rather than a progression framework as in a traditional maturity model? i.e. All layers need to be in place for the knowledge ecosystem to function effectively? The balance of investment across the layers to be dependent on the contextual needs.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

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

On 14 Nov 2022, at 2:57 AM, Dave Snowden via groups.io <snowded@...> wrote:

Well to be a contrary voice.  I think the APQC scales might be better termed a scale of ossification.  It’s also worth remembering that Nonaka failed to recognise Polanyi’s key point that no explicit knowledge can exist without a tacit component.    

To give a simple illustration.  Informal networks are far better than formal systems in knowledge discovery especially under conditions of uncertainty.  So a key measure of KM program success is the density and cross solo reach of informal networks.   Stage one is more resilient than stage four. 

Prof Dave Snowden

Cynefin Centre & Cognitive Edge

11 Pro

Please excuse predictive text errors and typos

On 14 Nov 2022, at 01:43, Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io <mdutoit@...> wrote:

Hi all, 

Thanks again for all your valuable inputs to help me solve this. I ended up adapting the APQC model and using your end state of value as key in assessing the knowledge.
What this means practically is that we identified key areas that the knowledge would be used for. In this particular case, we decided on 3 Objectives:
* Project Onboarding
* Problem Resolution (when problems arise in live and troubleshooting is required)
* Further Enhancements 

We will then assess the knowledge available to achieve each noted objective using the maturity model. (APQC I hope my slight adaptation is allowed).
(I was thinking of also categorising the knowledge as tacit and explicit so that targeted KM activities can be further enhanced to improve the maturity of the knowledge.)
<Knowledge Maturity.png>

I think it will work for us but welcome your thoughts and further input. 

On 14 Nov 2022, at 2:57 AM, Dave Snowden via groups.io <snowded@...> wrote:

Well to be a contrary voice.  I think the APQC scales might be better termed a scale of ossification.  It’s also worth remembering that Nonaka failed to recognise Polanyi’s key point that no explicit knowledge can exist without a tacit component.    

To give a simple illustration.  Informal networks are far better than formal systems in knowledge discovery especially under conditions of uncertainty.  So a key measure of KM program success is the density and cross solo reach of informal networks.   Stage one is more resilient than stage four. 

Prof Dave Snowden

Cynefin Centre & Cognitive Edge

11 Pro

Please excuse predictive text errors and typos

On 14 Nov 2022, at 01:43, Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io <mdutoit@...> wrote:

Hi all, 

Thanks again for all your valuable inputs to help me solve this. I ended up adapting the APQC model and using your end state of value as key in assessing the knowledge.
What this means practically is that we identified key areas that the knowledge would be used for. In this particular case, we decided on 3 Objectives:
* Project Onboarding
* Problem Resolution (when problems arise in live and troubleshooting is required)
* Further Enhancements 

We will then assess the knowledge available to achieve each noted objective using the maturity model. (APQC I hope my slight adaptation is allowed).
(I was thinking of also categorising the knowledge as tacit and explicit so that targeted KM activities can be further enhanced to improve the maturity of the knowledge.)
<Knowledge Maturity.png>

I think it will work for us but welcome your thoughts and further input. 

On 14 Nov 2022, at 01:43, Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io <mdutoit@...> wrote:

Hi all, 

Thanks again for all your valuable inputs to help me solve this. I ended up adapting the APQC model and using your end state of value as key in assessing the knowledge.
What this means practically is that we identified key areas that the knowledge would be used for. In this particular case, we decided on 3 Objectives:
* Project Onboarding
* Problem Resolution (when problems arise in live and troubleshooting is required)
* Further Enhancements 

We will then assess the knowledge available to achieve each noted objective using the maturity model. (APQC I hope my slight adaptation is allowed).
(I was thinking of also categorising the knowledge as tacit and explicit so that targeted KM activities can be further enhanced to improve the maturity of the knowledge.)


I think it will work for us but welcome your thoughts and further input. 

Love these videos, Arthur - thank you for the pointer/link to the YT channel. Great idea having a collection of these bite-sized video nuggets for people to dive into. 

I especially liked the one about the difference between leadership and management - first time I've seen it positioned that way, and very much appreciate the simple elegance of your explanation. 

Looking forward to the conversation on Monday. 
--
-Tom
--

Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457

All of my previous SIKM Posts