Date   

Our 300th Member #milestone

Stan Garfield
 

Today the 300th member joined the SIKM Leaders Community.  Welcome to Murray Jennex of San Diego State University.

Regards,
Stan


Re: Knowledge Specialization #expertise #taxonomy

Valdis Krebs <valdis@...>
 

Thanks for the heads-up Peter & Matt!

I have done quite a bit of work lately in "co-authorship" networks -- who writes/publishes with whom? This type of analysis is especially hot with pharmaceutical firms -- they want to know who the thought leaders/connectors are in various medical fields. I can't share client data/analysis, but here is a simple map of co-authors in the field of "social network analysis" -- a network of the network gurus.

http://www.orgnet.com/SN.html

Double-click on any node(author) to see more publications by author via Google Scholar. This map does not show metrics, but that is not hard to do -- we often find "mavens" and "connectors" in these maps using various network metrics. In a large organization we could look at node attributes such as location, department, division, etc. and see how much cross-functional (cross-silo) interaction/publication there is. We have a specific metric for this that can be tracked over time to see if interchange/intersection is inc/dec.

Valdis Krebs
http://www.orgnet.com
http://www.thenetworkthinker.com

On Nov 26, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Peter Marshall wrote:

Matt -- I really like your suggestion of analyzing whether this is a real problem by looking at the extent to which experts from separate specializations are publishing work together.. Looked at over time, one would hope that cross-fertilization growth counterbalanced the growth in specialization (speciation).

I was thinking about a response suggesting that "emergence" of new disciplines and synthetic categories was the natural counterbalance to specialization, and that this balanced evolution has always been happening. Altho info technology has no doubt sped up specialization, it certainly could also speed up synthesis.

Even aside from academic research, there are tons of current books that bring together insights and patterns of thinking across disciplines, Gladwell's as one example. My sense is that bemoaning specialization is like bemoaning how kids these days are (fill in something bad)... It's only one side of a story which has been going on forever, and whose other side (kids grow up and all that youthful energy and creativity fuels the cultural evolution) is the "answer".

I think your suggestion would allow us to measure this. Valdis?

Peter


On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Matt Moore <laalgadger@...> wrote:
Stan,

That's very interesting set of emails. I wonder about the species metaphor from biology. From my understanding, different species can no longer breed and produce fertile offspring (biologists correct me please). The specialisation of expertise is only an issue when experts can no longer communicate with each other - or understand each other's research.

I wonder if a network mapping approach might be appropriate here (hello Valdis). If you take the academic world, then if authors are publishing with each other then presumably there is some interchange. If they aren't then presumably there isn't. So say you take a particular field (e.g. economics, electrical engineering) and you identify the journals in your field. Looking at networks based on co-authorship over time, has the network (or networks) become more fragmented, have more cliques and sub-groups emerged?

Other approaches (that spring to mind for the academic world):
- Total number of books published in a discipline and the average number of copies bought (very crude)
- No of journal titles in a discipline (also crude)
- No of management related professions / professional associations (yip, crude)

As Lee notes, there are 2 parts to Arnold's question:
- Is there greater knowledge specialisation / fragmentation? The gut- feel answer is yes but it's difficult to quantify (and economists love quantification).
- Is this a bad thing? Well yes and no. Adam Smith talks about the advantages of a division of labour. Knowledge specialisation is not necessarily a bad thing. And there are many other issues that prevent senior managers from understanding what is going on in the trenches (status/arrogance on their part and deceit/information filtering on the part of their subordinates being just two).

Perhaps the issue is whether managers can make sense of conflicting information in complex situations or whether they can delegate effectively to their subordinates.

Cheers,

Matt





--
Peter Marshall
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: peter.marshall@...
Mobile: (949) 689-7000
Skype: ideasware
GTalk: peter.marshall


Re: Knowledge Specialization #expertise #taxonomy

Peter Marshall <peter.marshall@...>
 


Re: Knowledge Specialization #expertise #taxonomy

Matt Moore <laalgadger@...>
 

Stan,

That's very interesting set of emails. I wonder about the species metaphor from biology. From my understanding, different species can no longer breed and produce fertile offspring (biologists correct me please). The specialisation of expertise is only an issue when experts can no longer communicate with each other - or understand each other's research.

I wonder if a network mapping approach might be appropriate here (hello Valdis). If you take the academic world, then if authors are publishing with each other then presumably there is some interchange. If they aren't then presumably there isn't. So say you take a particular field (e.g. economics, electrical engineering) and you identify the journals in your field. Looking at networks based on co-authorship over time, has the network (or networks) become more fragmented, have more cliques and sub-groups emerged?

Other approaches (that spring to mind for the academic world):
- Total number of books published in a discipline and the average number of copies bought (very crude)
- No of journal titles in a discipline (also crude)
- No of management related professions / professional associations (yip, crude)

As Lee notes, there are 2 parts to Arnold's question:
- Is there greater knowledge specialisation / fragmentation? The gut-feel answer is yes but it's difficult to quantify (and economists love quantification).
- Is this a bad thing? Well yes and no. Adam Smith talks about the advantages of a division of labour. Knowledge specialisation is not necessarily a bad thing. And there are many other issues that prevent senior managers from understanding what is going on in the trenches (status/arrogance on their part and deceit/information filtering on the part of their subordinates being just two).

Perhaps the issue is whether managers can make sense of conflicting information in complex situations or whether they can delegate effectively to their subordinates.

Cheers,

Matt


Knowledge Specialization #expertise #taxonomy

Stan Garfield
 

A friend of mine who writes a leading economics blog posed the question below to me.  Lee Romero provided his thoughts (see below).  What other insights do you have?

Regards,
Stan

---------

From: Arnold Kling <akling4378@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:45 PM

I am interested (a bit) in the phenomenon of knowledge specialization.  For example, in medicine, there are many more specialties and sub-specialties than there were 30 years ago.  My guess is that if libraries are still using classification systems, there should be a lot more categories.  My guess is that major universities have many more departments than they did 30 years ago.

I think this is important in economics because I think that businesses and economic systems have become harder to manage as a result.  In short, the leaders tend to know less about the specialized information that is further down in the organization, because the amount of the latter is increasing (I conjecture).

I would like some quantitative indicators of the rate at which new knowledge categories or sub-categories are being developed.  Do you know how to even go about searching for such indicators?

Arnold Kling
http://arnoldkling.com
http://econlog.econlib.org

---------

From: Lee Romero <pekadad@...>
Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Here are some thoughts:

* First -I think would be useful is to split the idea into its parts -
there are really two theories in there that would need to be validated
and then correlated - First, that knowledge specialization is
increasing in a meaningful, measurable way and second, that this
increased specialization is somehow impacting the management of
businesses and economic systems.

* For the first question - My first reaction when reading through
Arnold's email was to look at SIC codes and (if possible - I don't
know SIC codes and their management process in detail) try to get a
picture of how they've changed through the years (specifically, how
much more refined they've become).  SIC codes don't really correlate
to "knowledge domains" but they could provide an indicator in terms of
how companies describe what they do.

* However, even though SIC codes get quite detailed at a macro level,
I don't think they get quite detailed enough to really shine much
light on this particular question.

* Another thought that might provide some hints would be to try to get
some insight on the keywords applied to research papers through the
years (using one of the many on-line systems that provide access to
abstracts for example) and try to determine if the range of keywords
used to describe research papers is increasing.  Again, this would
seem a bit indirect but it could support the argument.

* That idea is pretty similar to what Arnold suggests with regard to
examining classification systems used by libraries - that could be
another angle on this same idea, though - have the primary ways to do
that (Dewey Decimal System or the Library of Congress Classification
System really gotten "larger" or is the continued detailing of those
systems more a reflection of a refinement of understanding? Just
because someone added a new label does not necessarily imply that it
covers a "quantum of knowledge" that would be equivalent to other
labels, but, instead, just a recognition that a new label is needed.

* Similarly (and obvious, though perhaps a bit challenging to do),
following up on one of Arnold's theories - it could be useful to do a
review of departmental organizations within major universities and try
to measure some kind of increase in specialization.  To reduce the
effort of this, perhaps identify the top schools in particular domains
and focus on those (the idea being that the top universities in, say,
medicine or engineering would likely have the most need for
specialization).  Of course, that could then miss the "long tail"
where deep increases in specialization might be more apparent?

Some thoughts on the second question:

* One anecdotal thought that could be interpreted as supporting
Arnold's theory of the challenge of managing could be the rise of
communities of practice in organizations - the idea being that the
more strictly hierarchical organization that was (perhaps) more
prevalent has broken down because it is (perhaps) common now that a
manager does not have the specialized knowledge to usefully mentor
his/her employees with the broad variety of specializations they might
have - whereas the informal organization of a community of practice
enables people to cross organizational boundaries but still be bound
by the specialization in which they work.

* (On the flip side, the "flattening" of many organizations could
argue for that same thing as well - as organizations get flatter,
people have a larger management responsibility and so less of an
ability to really be specialized enough to know everything to mentor
team members...)

* I guess the challenge with regard to the second question is really
providing some kind of evidence (neither of above do so) that
businesses have become harder to manage - in what sense is the
management getting any harder?  Does that mean that the work of
individual managers is getting more challenging?  Or is it a question
more targeted at management in the bigger sense of company failures
(i.e., we believe management is getting harder because the # of
companies going under is increasing)?

Well, there are a whole lot of words and thoughts, though I'm not sure
any of them are all that useful in helping Arnold.

Regards
Lee Romero


Re: Your favorite online group tool #tools #CoP

Tom Short <tman9999@...>
 

I think you might also want to answer a few questions, starting
with, "what do you imagine the topic(s) of discussion will be among
this putative group of loosely affiliated folks?"

If you look around at blogs, wikis, threaded discussion boards,
yahoo-type groups, LinkedIn groups, facebooks, etc, and have
experienced hanging out in them yourself, I would suggest that *you*
need to determine which of these modes of communication (along with
others suggested in this thread) best reflect your vision of how
your mba class would be most predisposed to use. Which raises a
second question: where have you seen it work?

And thirdly, why would a bunch of loosely affiliated people expend
time and energy interacting with each other in virtual space, if
they, by definition of their looseness, did not expend much
time/energy interacting when they were together IRL?

The answers to these questions are mostly going to be known only to
you (and your loosely affiliated associates - hint). It seems to me
that answering them will provide some pointers to the best approach
to keeping you all connected.

--- In sikmleaders@..., "gjagai" <gjagai@...> wrote:

What is your favorite online tool to keep loosely affiliated folks
in
touch with each other and communicating? Which do you prefer among
these: Yahoo Groups, Google Groups, LinkedIn Groups, something else
entirely?

The requirements are:
1. Ease of use
2. Email digests
3. Light-weight document sharing
4. Email history kept
5. Low maintenance overhead

I'm biased to Yahoo Groups myself, but I find there is a certain
reluctance by some to embrace it in lieu of LinkedIn or even
Facebook.
Neither of which I find provide a nice email history.

Gian....
Knowledge Manager
HDS


Re: Your favorite online group tool #tools #CoP

Matt Moore <laalgadger@...>
 

Hiya,

I like Ning. The only downer about Ning is that you have to be logged into the site to do anything.

If your bunch of people communicates primarily thru email then Yahoo or Google groups is probably the most robust as it's part of their work environment.

May I suggest starting with the simplest tool you can (which may be an email list), getting a few people started on that and then if/when they say "we need something better", you upgrade to Ning or something more hi-falutin'?

Cheers,

Matt


Re: Your favorite online group tool #tools #CoP

Valdis Krebs <valdis@...>
 

Ditto to what Dave said.

I am in a NING group also... easy to use and customize your own page.

Valdis Krebs
http://www.orgnet.com

On Nov 24, 2008, at 5:45 PM, David Snowden wrote:

I'd use NING, free and does everything you have specified below



Dave Snowden
Founder & Chief Scientific Officer
Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com


On 24 Nov 2008, at 15:55, gjagai wrote:

Let me expand a little. I'm looking at keeping my MBA class alumni
together after we graduate. My starting place is that one of my team
members just found out about instant messaging this week. So hence I
was looking for something that had a low barrier to entry and
participation. And low maintenance as the group/community leader would
need minimal effort to maintain the site or tool. No IT here to help
unfortunately.

I've been playing around on the LinkedIn Groups and it doesn't seem to
offer the nice history of group emails like Yahoo Groups does. I like
the SIKM message history, as a new member I can read through the group
history and understand the personality of the group. The one drawback
with Yahoo Groups is you need a Yahoo ID.

I did a quick review of Google groups and its not as intuitive on how
to create, join and invite others into it.

Facebook doesn't offer a group discussion and history that's easy to
digest. I also find Facebook is more individual focused and less group
focused. Lastly Facebook seems to be more personal while LinkedIn more
professional.

I don't think Twitter is going to work as its too new for this group.
It also doesn't allow the 'rich' interaction that email does. And I'm
not sure how you track a conversation among many participants.

As for file sharing the requirement is for lightweight sharing again
similar to Yahoo Groups.

Of course there's an alumni tool offered by the university, but then
that's yet-another-tool that one has to keep track off and participate
in separately from your other online identities.

Gian...

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Jack Vinson" <jackvinson@...> wrote:

I agree with some of the other comments... Keeping loosely
connected people
in touch is one requirement -- and enabling email and document
sharing seems
like something else. Can you give us some more on what you are
trying to
do? How do you define "loosey connected?" I think of people who
might know
one another from previous jobs, or from (outside of work)
networking
activities, etc.

Jack


Re: Your favorite online group tool #tools #CoP

David Snowden <snowded@...>
 

I'd use NING, free and does everything you have specified below



Dave Snowden
Founder & Chief Scientific Officer
Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com


On 24 Nov 2008, at 15:55, gjagai wrote:

Let me expand a little. I'm looking at keeping my MBA class alumni
together after we graduate. My starting place is that one of my team
members just found out about instant messaging this week. So hence I
was looking for something that had a low barrier to entry and
participation. And low maintenance as the group/community leader would
need minimal effort to maintain the site or tool. No IT here to help
unfortunately.

I've been playing around on the LinkedIn Groups and it doesn't seem to
offer the nice history of group emails like Yahoo Groups does. I like
the SIKM message history, as a new member I can read through the group
history and understand the personality of the group. The one drawback
with Yahoo Groups is you need a Yahoo ID.

I did a quick review of Google groups and its not as intuitive on how
to create, join and invite others into it.

Facebook doesn't offer a group discussion and history that's easy to
digest. I also find Facebook is more individual focused and less group
focused. Lastly Facebook seems to be more personal while LinkedIn more
professional.

I don't think Twitter is going to work as its too new for this group.
It also doesn't allow the 'rich' interaction that email does. And I'm
not sure how you track a conversation among many participants.

As for file sharing the requirement is for lightweight sharing again
similar to Yahoo Groups.

Of course there's an alumni tool offered by the university, but then
that's yet-another-tool that one has to keep track off and participate
in separately from your other online identities.

Gian...

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Vinson" ...> wrote:
>
> I agree with some of the other comments... Keeping loosely
connected people
> in touch is one requirement -- and enabling email and document
sharing seems
> like something else. Can you give us some more on what you are
trying to
> do? How do you define "loosey connected?" I think of people who
might know
> one another from previous jobs, or from (outside of work) networking
> activities, etc.
> 
> Jack
>



Re: Improving knowledge support in sales situations #selling

stacie.m.jordan@...
 

Thanks Don – I will take a closer look at them.

 

Stacie M. Jordan

Accenture New York

Integrated Markets - Knowledge Management

Ph: 917-452-3018

Fax: 270-512-4943

AIM/MSN:  staciemjordan/staciejordan@...

Learn more about me on MyPage

 

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.


Re: Your favorite online group tool #tools #CoP

Don Kildebeck
 

One additional thing I did not mention. Typically with social networking tools, the tool itself will drive the level of participation. This is the inherit problem with the Twitters, Facebook, Linked-In, etc tools of the world. Their platform limitations become the groups collaborative limitations. If this is an MBA class you're attempting to keep together, why handcuff the group at the very start by using a lightweight social networking site that any pimply-faced 13 year old could set up? Go for broke, offer them a site that holds promise for true communciation and collaboration development. You might be pleasantly surprised by the results!

Regards,

Don

----- Original Message -----
From: dkkildebeck@...
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:54:58 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Your favorite online group tool

Gian,

Given your situation I would look into a third-party hosted SharePoint2007 site. There are plenty of companies now who will host an SP site for you, with full communication, collaboration, document-sharing, wiki, blog, etc. capabilities, for about the same price as a typical web-site. Out-of-the-box your site could be ready in just a few minutes.

 

Regards,

Don Kildebeck
----- Original Message -----
From: "gjagai"
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:55:43 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Your favorite online group tool

Let me expand a little. I'm looking at keeping my MBA class alumni
together after we graduate. My starting place is that one of my team
members just found out about instant messaging this week. So hence I
was looking for something that had a low barrier to entry and
participation. And low maintenance as the group/community leader would
need minimal effort to maintain the site or tool. No IT here to help
unfortunately.

I've been playing around on the LinkedIn Groups and it doesn't seem to
offer the nice history of group emails like Yahoo Groups does. I like
the SIKM message history, as a new member I can read through the group
history and understand the personality of the group. The one drawback
with Yahoo Groups is you need a Yahoo ID.

I did a quick review of Google groups and its not as intuitive on how
to create, join and invite others into it.

Facebook doesn't offer a group discussion and history that's easy to
digest. I also find Facebook is more individual focused and less group
focused. Lastly Facebook seems to be more personal while LinkedIn more
professional.

I don't think Twitter is going to work as its too new for this group.
It also doesn't allow the 'rich' interaction that email does. And I'm
not sure how you track a conversation among many participants.

As for file sharing the requirement is for lightweight sharing again
similar to Yahoo Groups.

Of course there's an alumni tool offered by the university, but then
that's yet-another-tool that one has to keep track off and participate
in separately from your other online identities.

Gian...

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Jack Vinson" wrote:
>
> I agree with some of the other comments... Keeping loosely
connected people
> in touch is one requirement -- and enabling email and document
sharing seems
> like something else. Can you give us some more on what you are
trying to
> do? How do you define "loosey connected?" I think of people who
might know
> one another from previous jobs, or from (outside of work) networking
> activities, etc.
>
> Jack
>


Re: Your favorite online group tool #tools #CoP

Don Kildebeck
 

Gian,

Given your situation I would look into a third-party hosted SharePoint2007 site. There are plenty of companies now who will host an SP site for you, with full communication, collaboration, document-sharing, wiki, blog, etc. capabilities, for about the same price as a typical web-site. Out-of-the-box your site could be ready in just a few minutes.

 

Regards,

Don Kildebeck

----- Original Message -----
From: "gjagai"
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:55:43 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Your favorite online group tool

Let me expand a little. I'm looking at keeping my MBA class alumni
together after we graduate. My starting place is that one of my team
members just found out about instant messaging this week. So hence I
was looking for something that had a low barrier to entry and
participation. And low maintenance as the group/community leader would
need minimal effort to maintain the site or tool. No IT here to help
unfortunately.

I've been playing around on the LinkedIn Groups and it doesn't seem to
offer the nice history of group emails like Yahoo Groups does. I like
the SIKM message history, as a new member I can read through the group
history and understand the personality of the group. The one drawback
with Yahoo Groups is you need a Yahoo ID.

I did a quick review of Google groups and its not as intuitive on how
to create, join and invite others into it.

Facebook doesn't offer a group discussion and history that's easy to
digest. I also find Facebook is more individual focused and less group
focused. Lastly Facebook seems to be more personal while LinkedIn more
professional.

I don't think Twitter is going to work as its too new for this group.
It also doesn't allow the 'rich' interaction that email does. And I'm
not sure how you track a conversation among many participants.

As for file sharing the requirement is for lightweight sharing again
similar to Yahoo Groups.

Of course there's an alumni tool offered by the university, but then
that's yet-another-tool that one has to keep track off and participate
in separately from your other online identities.

Gian...

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Jack Vinson" wrote:
>
> I agree with some of the other comments... Keeping loosely
connected people
> in touch is one requirement -- and enabling email and document
sharing seems
> like something else. Can you give us some more on what you are
trying to
> do? How do you define "loosey connected?" I think of people who
might know
> one another from previous jobs, or from (outside of work) networking
> activities, etc.
>
> Jack
>


Collaboration & Knowledge Capture within Technical Support Groups #call-center #collaboration #knowledge-capture

Gian Jagai
 

Hi All,

On an unrelated issue to my online group tool question.

Does anyone have any recommendations on solutions for customer support
teams to collaborate and capture solutions while in the process of
solving customer questions/issues?

We have call centers around the world that field questions from our
customers. I'd like to see us use a single tool that the support staff
spends their day in (i.e. no context switching between tools) that:
1. Captures the customer ticket/issue
2. Updates to the customer ticket/issue by level 1, 2 or 3 engineers
3. Allows customers to get an update online to their ticket
4. Allows for customer tickets to be routed to the right group after
the initial call
5. Allows the engineer to write up a summary on the solution attached
to the ticket that is then searchable by others for similar problems.

There's probably another 100 or so requirements and associated
solutions that one could come up with. I was hoping that this group
had some previous experiences that they could share to help me narrow
down the possible set of solutions.

Thanks
Gian...


Valdis Krebs <valdis@...>
 
Edited

An interesting article on the possible "generational war" between
Knowledge Management and Social Media...
http://web.archive.org/web/20081218194119/http://www.socialcomputingmagazine.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=626

Valdis Krebs
http://www.orgnet.com
http://www.thenetworkthinker.com


Re: Collaboration & Knowledge Capture within Technical Support Groups #call-center #collaboration #knowledge-capture

katepugh@...
 
Edited

Hi, Gian -

You can also try Salesforce.com
http://www.salesforce.com/products/service-support/

It looks as if they have a "force.com" platform that is open, and that extends beyond the "sale" to other channels/interactions.

kate
Katrina Pugh
katepugh@...
617 967 3910 (m)
781 538 5262 (l)


Re: Your favorite online group tool #tools #CoP

Gian Jagai
 

Let me expand a little. I'm looking at keeping my MBA class alumni
together after we graduate. My starting place is that one of my team
members just found out about instant messaging this week. So hence I
was looking for something that had a low barrier to entry and
participation. And low maintenance as the group/community leader would
need minimal effort to maintain the site or tool. No IT here to help
unfortunately.

I've been playing around on the LinkedIn Groups and it doesn't seem to
offer the nice history of group emails like Yahoo Groups does. I like
the SIKM message history, as a new member I can read through the group
history and understand the personality of the group. The one drawback
with Yahoo Groups is you need a Yahoo ID.

I did a quick review of Google groups and its not as intuitive on how
to create, join and invite others into it.

Facebook doesn't offer a group discussion and history that's easy to
digest. I also find Facebook is more individual focused and less group
focused. Lastly Facebook seems to be more personal while LinkedIn more
professional.

I don't think Twitter is going to work as its too new for this group.
It also doesn't allow the 'rich' interaction that email does. And I'm
not sure how you track a conversation among many participants.

As for file sharing the requirement is for lightweight sharing again
similar to Yahoo Groups.

Of course there's an alumni tool offered by the university, but then
that's yet-another-tool that one has to keep track off and participate
in separately from your other online identities.

Gian...

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Jack Vinson" <jackvinson@...> wrote:

I agree with some of the other comments... Keeping loosely
connected people
in touch is one requirement -- and enabling email and document
sharing seems
like something else. Can you give us some more on what you are
trying to
do? How do you define "loosey connected?" I think of people who
might know
one another from previous jobs, or from (outside of work) networking
activities, etc.

Jack


Re: Collaboration & Knowledge Capture within Technical Support Groups #call-center #collaboration #knowledge-capture

Peter Dorfman <pdorfman@...>
 

At the moment I'm using Atlassian's wiki platform Confluence for the knowledge
base component of precisely this function. --
http://pdorfman.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/new-partnership-atlassian/. The
ticketing/tracking component will be handled by BMC's Remedy, but any number of
other tools for trouble-ticketing or bug-tracking (including one that Atlassian
markets, called Jira) would work well. If "no context switching between tools" is
a firm requirement, Salesforce or RightNow would be good high-end solutions;
Numara's Footprints is good at the mid- to low end.

Peter Dorfman
KnowledgeFarm


On Mon Nov 24 11:15 , 'gjagai' <gjagai@...> sent:

Hi All,

On an unrelated issue to my online group tool question.

Does anyone have any recommendations on solutions for customer support
teams to collaborate and capture solutions while in the process of
solving customer questions/issues?

We have call centers around the world that field questions from our
customers. I'd like to see us use a single tool that the support staff
spends their day in (i.e. no context switching between tools) that:
1. Captures the customer ticket/issue
2. Updates to the customer ticket/issue by level 1, 2 or 3 engineers
3. Allows customers to get an update online to their ticket
4. Allows for customer tickets to be routed to the right group after
the initial call
5. Allows the engineer to write up a summary on the solution attached
to the ticket that is then searchable by others for similar problems.

There's probably another 100 or so requirements and associated
solutions that one could come up with. I was hoping that this group
had some previous experiences that they could share to help me narrow
down the possible set of solutions.

Thanks
Gian...



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/

Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

To change settings via email:
sikmleaders-digest@...
sikmleaders-fullfeatured@...

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sikmleaders-unsubscribe@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Your favorite online group tool #tools #CoP

Jack Vinson <jackvinson@...>
 


Re: Improving knowledge support in sales situations #selling

Matt Moore <laalgadger@...>
 

Stacie,

This is an article Keith de la Rue & I wrote about 6 months ago on this topic: http://innotecture.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/closingthedeal.pdf

Cheers,

Matt


--- On Fri, 11/21/08, sj541 wrote:
From: sj541
Subject: [sikmleaders] Improving knowledge support in sales situations
To: sikmleaders@...
Date: Friday, November 21, 2008, 7:45 PM

Hello - I am currently working on ideas for improving knowledge support
in sales situations. I'd be interested in hearing about any approaches
and/or tools you may be using to make it easier for your sales force to
find the information they need for sales situations.

Thanks, Stacie



Re: Improving knowledge support in sales situations #selling

Don Kildebeck
 

Stacie,

 

The Savo Group are specialists in this area and have some good material/presentations available on this topic:

 

http://www.savogroup.com/

 

Regards,

Don Kildebeck

----- Original Message -----
From: "sj541"
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 11:45:22 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [sikmleaders] Improving knowledge support in sales situations

Hello - I am currently working on ideas for improving knowledge support
in sales situations. I'd be interested in hearing about any approaches
and/or tools you may be using to make it easier for your sales force to
find the information they need for sales situations.

Thanks, Stacie