Perspectives on KMWorld conference #research #KMWorld #periodicals


Allan Crawford
 

I had the chance to interview Stan and a few others at the end of the recent KM World conference.  The interview question was simple -- what was your main take away from the conference.
 
Here are a few of the responses:

Carla O'Dell (APQC): Video will make a big difference in how we share knowledge..."YouTube has changed the world of KM"

Jim McGee: The return to the organizational dimension of KM and the shift away from being enamored with technology

Bob Wimpfheimer (Dr Pepper): It has shifted how I think about KM.  Previously it has been storing documents and making them available... I've come to see it's much more important to connect people with people

Jon Husband:  After years of taking about how to reuse knowledge, optimize it and classify it, people are beginning to understand that it’s really not very useful if people can't access it, share it and build upon it --- and that involves learning.  We are going to see blending of the disciplines we now know as learning, KM, personal development, organizational change...

Eric Mack (ICA):  The talk about social tools and social media...the primary value of these social tools is in the connection they provide between other peoples knowledge and the work we do…social networking tools allow us to bridge the connection between our experience and knowledge and that of others.

Patrick Lambe (Straits Knowledge): KM is in a long pause.  It has reached the limits of what it can do based on how we currently understand how knowledge is use in organizations.  It is still focused on individual transactions and individual pieces of knowledge….it needs to get to grips more with how organizations work as organisms…as thinking organisms.  It is touching that with the collective intelligence and wisdom of crowds stuff but it is nowhere near sophisticated enough to show results…and I think that is where it needs to go.

Stan Garfield (Deloitte):  KM is definitely not dead…it’s alive.  But we still have a lot of things to do…the things that I think are more important than the technology is the leadership…the things we need to do to get people to behave in a certain way to get communities to take off.  These are leadership issues…not technical challenges.  

The consistent themes appear to be that KM is about connecting people to people...KM is social... and success is dependant upon behaviors.  Even with the emergence of E2.0...techology is an important enablor for the connections ("YouTube has changed KM")...but is not the center of KM.  Something that many members of the SIKM group have been saying for a long time.

You can see the video complication of these interviews at www.kmisalive.com

 
 
 


Murray Jennex
 

I want to second Arthur's observation!  It appears to me that for once academia and practice are in agreement as I know my journal, the International Journal of KM, tends to a more people and organizational focus and the conference track I chair at the Hawaii International Conference for System Sciences, HICSS, titled Knowledge Management Systems, primarily focuses on organizational and people issues (as well as technical issues).  I do think we are in a time where technology is catching up to what we need it to do for us to further develop KM, but it will still be the organizational and people issues that will be the hardest to solve.....murray jennex
 

In a message dated 12/9/2009 6:35:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, arthur@... writes:


Allan,

Thanks for sharing these insights. It is great to see a strong emphasis on people (and therefore behavior and social interactions) in every one of the responses.
I also enjoyed seeing names of people I have had similar discussions with in the past and that some of them have shifted their thinking (or at least emphasis), even though they have changed roles/organisations (or perhaps because of this). More on this in my Feb webinar.

Arthur
Tweeting as Metaphorage

On 10/12/2009, at 6:00, <allancrawford@...> wrote:

 

I had the chance to interview Stan and a few others at the end of the recent KM World conference.  The interview question was simple -- what was your main take away from the conference.
 
Here are a few of the responses:

Carla O'Dell (APQC): Video will make a big difference in how we share knowledge..."YouTube has changed the world of KM"

Jim McGee: The return to the organizational dimension of KM and the shift away from being enamored with technology

Bob Wimpfheimer (Dr Pepper): It has shifted how I think about KM.  Previously it has been storing documents and making them available... I've come to see it's much more important to connect people with people

Jon Husband:  After years of taking about how to reuse knowledge, optimize it and classify it, people are beginning to understand that it’s really not very useful if people can't access it, share it and build upon it --- and that involves learning.  We are going to see blending of the disciplines we now know as learning, KM, personal development, organizational change...

Eric Mack (ICA):  The talk about social tools and social media...the primary value of these social tools is in the connection they provide between other peoples knowledge and the work we do…social networking tools allow us to bridge the connection between our experience and knowledge and that of others.

Patrick Lambe (Straits Knowledge): KM is in a long pause.  It has reached the limits of what it can do based on how we currently understand how knowledge is use in organizations.  It is still focused on individual transactions and individual pieces of knowledge….it needs to get to grips more with how organizations work as organisms…as thinking organisms.  It is touching that with the collective intelligence and wisdom of crowds stuff but it is nowhere near sophisticated enough to show results…and I think that is where it needs to go.

Stan Garfield (Deloitte):  KM is definitely not dead…it’s alive.  But we still have a lot of things to do…the things that I think are more important than the technology is the leadership…the things we need to do to get people to behave in a certain way to get communities to take off.  These are leadership issues…not technical challenges.  

The consistent themes appear to be that KM is about connecting people to people...KM is social... and success is dependant upon behaviors.  Even with the emergence of E2.0...techology is an important enablor for the connections ("YouTube has changed KM")...but is not the center of KM.  Something that many members of the SIKM group have been saying for a long time.

You can see the video complication of these interviews at www.kmisalive.com

 
 
 


Arthur Shelley
 

Allan,

Thanks for sharing these insights. It is great to see a strong emphasis on people (and therefore behavior and social interactions) in every one of the responses.
I also enjoyed seeing names of people I have had similar discussions with in the past and that some of them have shifted their thinking (or at least emphasis), even though they have changed roles/organisations (or perhaps because of this). More on this in my Feb webinar.

Arthur
Tweeting as Metaphorage

On 10/12/2009, at 6:00, <allancrawford@...> wrote:

 

I had the chance to interview Stan and a few others at the end of the recent KM World conference.  The interview question was simple -- what was your main take away from the conference.
 
Here are a few of the responses:

Carla O'Dell (APQC): Video will make a big difference in how we share knowledge..."YouTube has changed the world of KM"

Jim McGee: The return to the organizational dimension of KM and the shift away from being enamored with technology

Bob Wimpfheimer (Dr Pepper): It has shifted how I think about KM.  Previously it has been storing documents and making them available... I've come to see it's much more important to connect people with people

Jon Husband:  After years of taking about how to reuse knowledge, optimize it and classify it, people are beginning to understand that it’s really not very useful if people can't access it, share it and build upon it --- and that involves learning.  We are going to see blending of the disciplines we now know as learning, KM, personal development, organizational change...

Eric Mack (ICA):  The talk about social tools and social media...the primary value of these social tools is in the connection they provide between other peoples knowledge and the work we do…social networking tools allow us to bridge the connection between our experience and knowledge and that of others.

Patrick Lambe (Straits Knowledge): KM is in a long pause.  It has reached the limits of what it can do based on how we currently understand how knowledge is use in organizations.  It is still focused on individual transactions and individual pieces of knowledge….it needs to get to grips more with how organizations work as organisms…as thinking organisms.  It is touching that with the collective intelligence and wisdom of crowds stuff but it is nowhere near sophisticated enough to show results…and I think that is where it needs to go.

Stan Garfield (Deloitte):  KM is definitely not dead…it’s alive.  But we still have a lot of things to do…the things that I think are more important than the technology is the leadership…the things we need to do to get people to behave in a certain way to get communities to take off.  These are leadership issues…not technical challenges.  

The consistent themes appear to be that KM is about connecting people to people...KM is social... and success is dependant upon behaviors.  Even with the emergence of E2.0...techology is an important enablor for the connections ("YouTube has changed KM")...but is not the center of KM.  Something that many members of the SIKM group have been saying for a long time.

You can see the video complication of these interviews at www.kmisalive.com

 
 
 


Thomas Blumer
 

Hi Allan,

Thank you for the great summary. I missed a final word from you on the video :-)

Some of the notes I took are:
-Combination of semantic, personalized and social search approaches
-The hidden value of emails and how to harvest them
-Build (KM) reputation based on value and actions and not credentials or titles
-How to ask questions without losing face within a company
-KM for KM folks (best practices and learning)

I seemed to me that the (vendor driven) message of the KM World was "use social media and KM will work." As the statements from Allan's interview indicated, the new tools will not solve the fundamental issues KM has to overcome. The new tools have to show business value to be successful and the psychological aspects that enable knowledge transfer and allow identifying experts will be the key ingredient.

Best regards,

Thomas


Arthur Shelley
 

Murray,

 

I have been experimenting with some novel behavioural concepts in my Knowledge Management classes which the students get a lot out of.  They learn that leading the right environment to generate the most appropriate human interactions is more likely to stimulate success (and sometimes even unexpected benefits).  It is this type of article that we need to be publishing more, the hard thing is it needs to be a reflective paper rather than a “academically rigorous research article”, because too much of the rich learnings get lost when we can only talk about what can be measured objectively.  Despite story being more subjective and almost impossible to “prove” (whatever that means), people understand them and are moved by them much more than a dry piece of research. 

 

Somehow we in academia (I am now back in academia doing a PhD in the impact of behaviour on knowledge transfer – and therefore on outcomes) need to understand how to make more impact from what we know.  We should not be trying to preach to each other in our own jargon, we need to use the language of others to generate benefits for them from what we know.  I believe this is the very essence of “doing KM”.  If we don’t make a difference, then why are we doing what we do.  For example why aren’t KM’ers the foundation advisors for the decision makers at Copenhagen? We should chat sometime.

Regards

Arthur Shelley
Author: The Organizational Zoo A Survival Guide to Workplace Behavior and
Being a Successful Knowledge Leader  What knowledge practitioners need to know to make a difference.
www.organizationalzoo.com
Twitter: Metaphorage
Ph +61 413 047 408


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2009 5:20 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Perspectives on KM World conference

 

 

I want to second Arthur's observation!  It appears to me that for once academia and practice are in agreement as I know my journal, the International Journal of KM, tends to a more people and organizational focus and the conference track I chair at the Hawaii International Conference for System Sciences, HICSS, titled Knowledge Management Systems, primarily focuses on organizational and people issues (as well as technical issues).  I do think we are in a time where technology is catching up to what we need it to do for us to further develop KM, but it will still be the organizational and people issues that will be the hardest to solve.....murray jennex

 

In a message dated 12/9/2009 6:35:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, arthur@organizationalzoo.com writes:




Allan,

 

Thanks for sharing these insights. It is great to see a strong emphasis on people (and therefore behavior and social interactions) in every one of the responses.

I also enjoyed seeing names of people I have had similar discussions with in the past and that some of them have shifted their thinking (or at least emphasis), even though they have changed roles/organisations (or perhaps because of this). More on this in my Feb webinar.

Arthur

Tweeting as Metaphorage


On 10/12/2009, at 6:00, <allancrawford@mindspring.com> wrote:

 

I had the chance to interview Stan and a few others at the end of the recent KM World conference.  The interview question was simple -- what was your main take away from the conference.

 

Here are a few of the responses:

Carla O'Dell (APQC): Video will make a big difference in how we share knowledge..."YouTube has changed the world of KM"

Jim McGee: The return to the organizational dimension of KM and the shift away from being enamored with technology

Bob Wimpfheimer (Dr Pepper): It has shifted how I think about KM.  Previously it has been storing documents and making them available... I've come to see it's much more important to connect people with people

Jon Husband:  After years of taking about how to reuse knowledge, optimize it and classify it, people are beginning to understand that it’s really not very useful if people can't access it, share it and build upon it --- and that involves learning.  We are going to see blending of the disciplines we now know as learning, KM, personal development, organizational change...

Eric Mack (ICA):  The talk about social tools and social media...the primary value of these social tools is in the connection they provide between other peoples knowledge and the work we do…social networking tools allow us to bridge the connection between our experience and knowledge and that of others.

Patrick Lambe (Straits Knowledge): KM is in a long pause.  It has reached the limits of what it can do based on how we currently understand how knowledge is use in organizations.  It is still focused on individual transactions and individual pieces of knowledge….it needs to get to grips more with how organizations work as organisms…as thinking organisms.  It is touching that with the collective intelligence and wisdom of crowds stuff but it is nowhere near sophisticated enough to show results…and I think that is where it needs to go.

Stan Garfield (Deloitte):  KM is definitely not dead…it’s alive.  But we still have a lot of things to do…the things that I think are more important than the technology is the leadership…the things we need to do to get people to behave in a certain way to get communities to take off.  These are leadership issues…not technical challenges.  

The consistent themes appear to be that KM is about connecting people to people...KM is social... and success is dependant upon behaviors.  Even with the emergence of E2.0...techology is an important enablor for the connections ("YouTube has changed KM")...but is not the center of KM.  Something that many members of the SIKM group have been saying for a long time.

You can see the video complication of these interviews at www.kmisalive.com

 

 

 


Murray Jennex
 

Arthur,
 
I hear what you are saying below but don't really agree.  Academia allows for two types of research, quantitative and qualitative.  It is true that the top academic IS journals (especially those based in the US) favor quantitative approaches that verify theory and hypotheses.  However, almost all journals allow for the qualitative approach.  My journal, International Journal of Knowledge Management, likes quantitative articles but also publishes a large number of qualitative articles that include reflection.  I also publish conceptual articles that propose theory as long as they are based on some reflective research.  I agree that hardly any journal will publish a reflective article not based on some research.
 
The key to getting this type of article published is in being rigorous in applying your methodology. Many write reflective articles and tell stories.  These articles can be published if done using a rigorous method in capturing the story, such as case study or action research methods.  The article still needs to include a methodology section describing how the 'data' was gathered and analyzed.  As long as the article shows that a valid method of scientific inquiry was used and applied rigorously, I'll publish it (as long as the contribution and good writing are there). 
 
The misconception on this type of research comes primarily from Australian and European researchers who do this type of research well, but don't write it up rigorously.  For what its worth I do work with these authors to get their articles ready for publication.  Also, I'm not disparaging Australian and European researchers, they do good work, its just that their writing standards aren't the same as US academic quantitative positivist writing standards.  This is a cause of friction between US (and also Asian and the positivist researchers in Germany) researchers and the qualitative researchers. 
 
The net result is yes, its hard to get reflective research published in the A+ US IS academic journals (but it is possible if the article is written rigorously) but its not so difficult getting reflective research published in KM specific IS journals.
 
If anyone is having these issues and want to get an article published, let me know and I'll see what I can do.  Thanks....murray
 
Editor in Chief International Journal of Knowledge Management
Co-editor in Chief International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management
 

In a message dated 12/13/2009 3:18:07 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, arthur@... writes:


Murray,

 

I have been experimenting with some novel behavioural concepts in my Knowledge Management classes which the students get a lot out of.  They learn that leading the right environment to generate the most appropriate human interactions is more likely to stimulate success (and sometimes even unexpected benefits).  It is this type of article that we need to be publishing more, the hard thing is it needs to be a reflective paper rather than a “academically rigorous research article”, because too much of the rich learnings get lost when we can only talk about what can be measured objectively.  Despite story being more subjective and almost impossible to “prove” (whatever that means), people understand them and are moved by them much more than a dry piece of research. 

 

Somehow we in academia (I am now back in academia doing a PhD in the impact of behaviour on knowledge transfer – and therefore on outcomes) need to understand how to make more impact from what we know.  We should not be trying to preach to each other in our own jargon, we need to use the language of others to generate benefits for them from what we know.  I believe this is the very essence of “doing KM”.  If we don’t make a difference, then why are we doing what we do.  For example why aren’t KM’ers the foundation advisors for the decision makers at Copenhagen? We should chat sometime.

Regards

Arthur Shelley
Author: The Organizational Zoo A Survival Guide to Workplace Behavior and
Being a Successful Knowledge Leader  What knowledge practitioners need to know to make a difference.
www.organizationalzoo.com
Twitter: Metaphorage
Ph +61 413 047 408


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2009 5:20 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Perspectives on KM World conference

 

 

I want to second Arthur's observation!  It appears to me that for once academia and practice are in agreement as I know my journal, the International Journal of KM, tends to a more people and organizational focus and the conference track I chair at the Hawaii International Conference for System Sciences, HICSS, titled Knowledge Management Systems, primarily focuses on organizational and people issues (as well as technical issues).  I do think we are in a time where technology is catching up to what we need it to do for us to further develop KM, but it will still be the organizational and people issues that will be the hardest to solve.....murray jennex

 

In a message dated 12/9/2009 6:35:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, arthur@organizationalzoo.com writes:




Allan,

 

Thanks for sharing these insights. It is great to see a strong emphasis on people (and therefore behavior and social interactions) in every one of the responses.

I also enjoyed seeing names of people I have had similar discussions with in the past and that some of them have shifted their thinking (or at least emphasis), even though they have changed roles/organisations (or perhaps because of this). More on this in my Feb webinar.

Arthur

Tweeting as Metaphorage


On 10/12/2009, at 6:00, <allancrawford@mindspring.com> wrote:

 

I had the chance to interview Stan and a few others at the end of the recent KM World conference.  The interview question was simple -- what was your main take away from the conference.

 

Here are a few of the responses:

Carla O'Dell (APQC): Video will make a big difference in how we share knowledge..."YouTube has changed the world of KM"

Jim McGee: The return to the organizational dimension of KM and the shift away from being enamored with technology

Bob Wimpfheimer (Dr Pepper): It has shifted how I think about KM.  Previously it has been storing documents and making them available... I've come to see it's much more important to connect people with people

Jon Husband:  After years of taking about how to reuse knowledge, optimize it and classify it, people are beginning to understand that it’s really not very useful if people can't access it, share it and build upon it --- and that involves learning.  We are going to see blending of the disciplines we now know as learning, KM, personal development, organizational change...

Eric Mack (ICA):  The talk about social tools and social media...the primary value of these social tools is in the connection they provide between other peoples knowledge and the work we do…social networking tools allow us to bridge the connection between our experience and knowledge and that of others.

Patrick Lambe (Straits Knowledge): KM is in a long pause.  It has reached the limits of what it can do based on how we currently understand how knowledge is use in organizations.  It is still focused on individual transactions and individual pieces of knowledge….it needs to get to grips more with how organizations work as organisms…as thinking organisms.  It is touching that with the collective intelligence and wisdom of crowds stuff but it is nowhere near sophisticated enough to show results…and I think that is where it needs to go.

Stan Garfield (Deloitte):  KM is definitely not dead…it’s alive.  But we still have a lot of things to do…the things that I think are more important than the technology is the leadership…the things we need to do to get people to behave in a certain way to get communities to take off.  These are leadership issues…not technical challenges.  

The consistent themes appear to be that KM is about connecting people to people...KM is social... and success is dependant upon behaviors.  Even with the emergence of E2.0...techology is an important enablor for the connections ("YouTube has changed KM")...but is not the center of KM.  Something that many members of the SIKM group have been saying for a long time.

You can see the video complication of these interviews at www.kmisalive.com

 

 

 


Arthur Shelley
 

Murray,



Thanks for defining your thoughts on what is worthy of publication and what
is on shaky foundations. My own research is a combination of qualitative
and quantitative methods, so I know concur it is hard get "academically
robust" data that remains meaningful. Once we abstract to the point of what
is "provable", we miss so much of the richness of what happened and the
impact this has on the environment and interactions. For example,
quantitative research would state the three children played for two hours
before they became tired and irritable and then they fought (assuming there
were "objective measures" of tiredness and degree of irritability that could
be proven to be reliable). Qualitative researchers would generally avoid
such research because it is too hard to objectively assess (and as there are
no commercial interests it does not get funded).



In contrast, two parents (generally mothers who are friends and whom may or
may not have any forma qualifications) watch the children and discuss their
interactions in a highly rich conversation (without the need to refer to any
methodology). This dialogue brings insights and learnings to each
participant, which they then apply back into how they interact with the
children. This "research" outcome has immediate effect on the
relationships, trust and wellbeing of all parties involved (parents and
children) and is not generally published or challenged. My argument is with
a lot of research, this is what we miss out on because we can only publish
the tip of the iceberg - what is "acceptably visible or defendable" (or even
noticed - many great breakthoughs were completely missed by the researchers
only to be discovered by accident not design). Too much academic research
completely misses these emergent or hidden gems as we are too often focuses
on proving what we believe will be the case. When such work is
published/read, it can be so far removed from reality that the true
potential value is not able to be transferred to those who could have learnt
from it.



How often have you thought to yourself, I just wish I was there to observe
what really happened rather than read some data points that someone else
observed through their own lenses and with their own interpretation. If this
were only possible, development and transfer of knowledge would be far
greater than it is now. This is where analysis of meta patterns in
narrative fragments is offering promise (refer Dave Snowden's work using
tools such as Sensemaker). I believe such approaches gather much richer
insights and minimises cognitive bias inherent in traditional methods.
Until we can publish what we are beginnning to understand, rather than what
we can prove, we will all remain poorer in our ability to help others.
Meanwhile, most will continue to satisfice with what they have and what
readers will accept. Optimistically, we are working in the right direction
and we are getting better at qualitative methods and in time we will
accelerate the development of new ideas by exchanging views in forums where
"half baked ideas and concepts" can be exchanges, challenged and thrown
around between people who eagerly explore what "can be" rather than focus on
what "already is" (known). Look forward to sending you something deemed
publishable sometime in future :-).

Regards

Arthur Shelley
Author: The Organizational Zoo A Survival Guide to Workplace Behavior and
Being a Successful Knowledge Leader What knowledge practitioners need to
know to make a difference.
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com> www.organizationalzoo.com
Twitter: Metaphorage
Ph +61 413 047 408

_____

From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of murphjen@aol.com
Sent: Monday, 14 December 2009 1:41 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Perspectives on KM World conference





Arthur,



I hear what you are saying below but don't really agree. Academia allows
for two types of research, quantitative and qualitative. It is true that
the top academic IS journals (especially those based in the US) favor
quantitative approaches that verify theory and hypotheses. However, almost
all journals allow for the qualitative approach. My journal, International
Journal of Knowledge Management, likes quantitative articles but also
publishes a large number of qualitative articles that include reflection. I
also publish conceptual articles that propose theory as long as they are
based on some reflective research. I agree that hardly any journal will
publish a reflective article not based on some research.



The key to getting this type of article published is in being rigorous in
applying your methodology. Many write reflective articles and tell stories.
These articles can be published if done using a rigorous method in capturing
the story, such as case study or action research methods. The article still
needs to include a methodology section describing how the 'data' was
gathered and analyzed. As long as the article shows that a valid method of
scientific inquiry was used and applied rigorously, I'll publish it (as long
as the contribution and good writing are there).



The misconception on this type of research comes primarily from Australian
and European researchers who do this type of research well, but don't write
it up rigorously. For what its worth I do work with these authors to get
their articles ready for publication. Also, I'm not disparaging Australian
and European researchers, they do good work, its just that their writing
standards aren't the same as US academic quantitative positivist writing
standards. This is a cause of friction between US (and also Asian and the
positivist researchers in Germany) researchers and the qualitative
researchers.



The net result is yes, its hard to get reflective research published in the
A+ US IS academic journals (but it is possible if the article is written
rigorously) but its not so difficult getting reflective research published
in KM specific IS journals.



If anyone is having these issues and want to get an article published, let
me know and I'll see what I can do. Thanks....murray



Editor in Chief International Journal of Knowledge Management

Co-editor in Chief International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis
Response and Management

In a message dated 12/13/2009 3:18:07 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arthur@organizationalzoo.com writes:






Murray,



I have been experimenting with some novel behavioural concepts in my
Knowledge Management classes which the students get a lot out of. They
learn that leading the right environment to generate the most appropriate
human interactions is more likely to stimulate success (and sometimes even
unexpected benefits). It is this type of article that we need to be
publishing more, the hard thing is it needs to be a reflective paper rather
than a "academically rigorous research article", because too much of the
rich learnings get lost when we can only talk about what can be measured
objectively. Despite story being more subjective and almost impossible to
"prove" (whatever that means), people understand them and are moved by them
much more than a dry piece of research.



Somehow we in academia (I am now back in academia doing a PhD in the impact
of behaviour on knowledge transfer - and therefore on outcomes) need to
understand how to make more impact from what we know. We should not be
trying to preach to each other in our own jargon, we need to use the
language of others to generate benefits for them from what we know. I
believe this is the very essence of "doing KM". If we don't make a
difference, then why are we doing what we do. For example why aren't KM'ers
the foundation advisors for the decision makers at Copenhagen? We should
chat sometime.

Regards

Arthur Shelley
Author: The Organizational Zoo A Survival Guide to Workplace Behavior and
Being a Successful Knowledge Leader What knowledge practitioners need to
know to make a difference.
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com/> www.organizationalzoo.com
Twitter: Metaphorage
Ph +61 413 047 408


_____


From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of murphjen@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2009 5:20 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Perspectives on KM World conference





I want to second Arthur's observation! It appears to me that for once
academia and practice are in agreement as I know my journal, the
International Journal of KM, tends to a more people and organizational focus
and the conference track I chair at the Hawaii International Conference for
System Sciences, HICSS, titled Knowledge Management Systems, primarily
focuses on organizational and people issues (as well as technical issues).
I do think we are in a time where technology is catching up to what we need
it to do for us to further develop KM, but it will still be the
organizational and people issues that will be the hardest to
solve.....murray jennex



In a message dated 12/9/2009 6:35:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arthur@organizationalzoo.com writes:







Allan,



Thanks for sharing these insights. It is great to see a strong emphasis on
people (and therefore behavior and social interactions) in every one of the
responses.

I also enjoyed seeing names of people I have had similar discussions with in
the past and that some of them have shifted their thinking (or at least
emphasis), even though they have changed roles/organisations (or perhaps
because of this). More on this in my Feb webinar.

Arthur

www.organizationalz <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/> oo.com

Tweeting as Metaphorage


On 10/12/2009, at 6:00, <allancrawford@
<mailto:allancrawford@mindspring.com> mindspring.com> wrote:



I had the chance to interview Stan and a few others at the end of the recent
KM World conference. The interview question was simple -- what was your
main take away from the conference.



Here are a few of the responses:

Carla O'Dell (APQC): Video will make a big difference in how we share
knowledge..."YouTube has changed the world of KM"

Jim McGee: The return to the organizational dimension of KM and the shift
away from being enamored with technology

Bob Wimpfheimer (Dr Pepper): It has shifted how I think about KM.
Previously it has been storing documents and making them available... I've
come to see it's much more important to connect people with people

Jon Husband: After years of taking about how to reuse knowledge, optimize
it and classify it, people are beginning to understand that it's really not
very useful if people can't access it, share it and build upon it --- and
that involves learning. We are going to see blending of the disciplines we
now know as learning, KM, personal development, organizational change...

Eric Mack (ICA): The talk about social tools and social media...the primary
value of these social tools is in the connection they provide between other
peoples knowledge and the work we do.social networking tools allow us to
bridge the connection between our experience and knowledge and that of
others.

Patrick Lambe (Straits Knowledge): KM is in a long pause. It has reached
the limits of what it can do based on how we currently understand how
knowledge is use in organizations. It is still focused on individual
transactions and individual pieces of knowledge..it needs to get to grips
more with how organizations work as organisms.as thinking organisms. It is
touching that with the collective intelligence and wisdom of crowds stuff
but it is nowhere near sophisticated enough to show results.and I think that
is where it needs to go.

Stan Garfield (Deloitte): KM is definitely not dead.it's alive. But we
still have a lot of things to do.the things that I think are more important
than the technology is the leadership.the things we need to do to get people
to behave in a certain way to get communities to take off. These are
leadership issues.not technical challenges.

The consistent themes appear to be that KM is about connecting people to
people...KM is social... and success is dependant upon behaviors. Even with
the emergence of E2.0...techology is an important enablor for the
connections ("YouTube has changed KM")...but is not the center of KM.
Something that many members of the SIKM group have been saying for a long
time.

You can see the video complication of these interviews at www.kmisalive.
<http://www.kmisalive.com/> com


Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Arthur,

If the academic world does not want your research & observations then may I suggest a practitioner blog. There are many fine KM blogs out there but if you can produce something of the quality of Mary Abraham's work as a reflective practitioner (and I am sure that you can) then everyone's a winner.

I am now going to make a controversial observation (& this is not a dig at Murray). There is a lot of bad quantitative research out there. And unfortunately the many in the North American social sciences community seem to suffer from "physics envy" and valorize bad surveys* over good qualitative investigation**. BTW My partner is a market researcher with a qualitative focus. It seems the US qualitative market research community are way, way behind their European & Australian counterparts - mostly because the focus is on "quant" rather than "qual".

As you may know, I am a big fan of evidence-based approaches. However evidence takes many forms and I'd rather work with good qual than bad quant any day.

Cheers,

Matt

*I have to be careful what I say here because I am currently involved in not 1 but 2 survey data collection exercises.

**The survey fixation was identified by Webb et al at least as far back as 1966. It was discussed at length in the first edition of this classic: http://www.sagepub.com/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book10141


Tom <tman9999@...>
 

This sounds like an example of a case study to me. You describe a situation based on first person, subjective observation, along with outcomes and end states. Using this 'n of 1' you then analyze it using an existing or ad hoc framework in order to reach conclusions about it. Where things can get a bit tenuous is when you then attempt to take your conclusions from your n of 1 experiment and develop generalized prescriptive recommendations from them.

Case-based research, I believe, is accepted as a valid approach, isn't it? And what about longitudinal studies that look across multiple cases over time?

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "Arthur Shelley" <arthur@...> wrote:

Murray,



I have been experimenting with some novel behavioural concepts in my
Knowledge Management classes which the students get a lot out of. They
learn that leading the right environment to generate the most appropriate
human interactions is more likely to stimulate success (and sometimes even
unexpected benefits). It is this type of article that we need to be
publishing more, the hard thing is it needs to be a reflective paper rather
than a "academically rigorous research article", because too much of the
rich learnings get lost when we can only talk about what can be measured
objectively. Despite story being more subjective and almost impossible to
"prove" (whatever that means), people understand them and are moved by them
much more than a dry piece of research.



Somehow we in academia (I am now back in academia doing a PhD in the impact
of behaviour on knowledge transfer - and therefore on outcomes) need to
understand how to make more impact from what we know. We should not be
trying to preach to each other in our own jargon, we need to use the
language of others to generate benefits for them from what we know. I
believe this is the very essence of "doing KM". If we don't make a
difference, then why are we doing what we do. For example why aren't KM'ers
the foundation advisors for the decision makers at Copenhagen? We should
chat sometime.

Regards

Arthur Shelley
Author: The Organizational Zoo A Survival Guide to Workplace Behavior and
Being a Successful Knowledge Leader What knowledge practitioners need to
know to make a difference.
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com> www.organizationalzoo.com
Twitter: Metaphorage
Ph +61 413 047 408


Murray Jennex
 

Matt/Arthur,
 
I actually agree with you, I think you'all missed what I was saying,  Its not the data or the method that keeps these observations from being published, its the write up.  I actually agree, and have published a piece, on how KM needs rich, qualitative research at this point to discover our theory.  The majority of my own work that is published is qualitative, including what I've published in European journals.  The point I made, as an editor in chief of two journals, is that to get published you have to write a paper that is rigorous in whatever method that is used (yes, there is rigorous qualitatitive methods) and thorough in its review of literature and application of theory and analysis of data. 
 
I have publised articles from authors who have a good qualitatitive, reflective story to tell, regardless of where they are from.  You just need t write a good paper.....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Moore
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Mon, Dec 14, 2009 3:14 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Perspectives on research methods



Arthur,

If the academic world does not want your research & observations then may I suggest a practitioner blog. There are many fine KM blogs out there but if you can produce something of the quality of Mary Abraham's work as a reflective practitioner (and I am sure that you can) then everyone's a winner.

I am now going to make a controversial observation (& this is not a dig at Murray). There is a lot of bad quantitative research out there. And unfortunately the many in the North American social sciences community seem to suffer from "physics envy" and valorize bad surveys* over good qualitative investigation**. BTW My partner is a market researcher with a qualitative focus. It seems the US qualitative market research community are way, way behind their European & Australian counterparts - mostly because the focus is on "quant" rather than "qual".

As you may know, I am a big fan of evidence-based approaches. However evidence takes many forms and I'd rather work with good qual than bad quant any day.

Cheers,

Matt

*I have to be careful what I say here because I am currently involved in not 1 but 2 survey data collection exercises.

**The survey fixation was identified by Webb et al at least as far back as 1966. It was discussed at length in the first edition of this classic: http://www.sagepub.com/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book10141




Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

Murray,

You've actually hit on a personal bug-bear of mine in the little bit of paper reviewing I've done - absence of a solid methods section. Interesting that you think Americans are better at this - from as far as I can tell (what with blind refereeing) it's a problem all over.

Cheers,

Matt


Murray Jennex
 

Thanks Matt,
 
I agree with you and I shouldn't really say Americans are better at it given that academia, like most all else, has gone global.  Researchers from American universities tend to be better at this due to publish or perish requirement for tenure and a focus on US based quantitative journals, but, it seems most new researchers are bad at this regardless of where they are at or from and of course, US researchers are approaching 50% international (researchers who are trying to publish) so probably any debate on which national origin is better is doomed to failure.  A better argument is university of origin...murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Moore To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Mon, Dec 14, 2009 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Perspectives on research methods



Murray,

You've actually hit on a personal bug-bear of mine in the little bit of paper reviewing I've done - absence of a solid methods section. Interesting that you think Americans are better at this - from as far as I can tell (what with blind refereeing) it's a problem all over.

Cheers,

Matt




Arthur Shelley
 

Murray and Matt,

I actually don't know if they want my work or not, I have not offered anything yet. I am commenting as a reader of articles and note the absence of this type of research. No doubt I will find out when the time comes to publish.
Arthur

Arthur
Tweeting as Metaphorage

On 15/12/2009, at 4:38, murphjen@... wrote:

 

Matt/Arthur,
 
I actually agree with you, I think you'all missed what I was saying,  Its not the data or the method that keeps these observations from being published, its the write up.  I actually agree, and have published a piece, on how KM needs rich, qualitative research at this point to discover our theory.  The majority of my own work that is published is qualitative, including what I've published in European journals.  The point I made, as an editor in chief of two journals, is that to get published you have to write a paper that is rigorous in whatever method that is used (yes, there is rigorous qualitatitive methods) and thorough in its review of literature and application of theory and analysis of data. 
 
I have publised articles from authors who have a good qualitatitive, reflective story to tell, regardless of where they are from.  You just need t write a good paper.....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Moore yahoo.com>
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Dec 14, 2009 3:14 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Perspectives on research methods



Arthur,

If the academic world does not want your research & observations then may I suggest a practitioner blog. There are many fine KM blogs out there but if you can produce something of the quality of Mary Abraham's work as a reflective practitioner (and I am sure that you can) then everyone's a winner.

I am now going to make a controversial observation (& this is not a dig at Murray). There is a lot of bad quantitative research out there. And unfortunately the many in the North American social sciences community seem to suffer from "physics envy" and valorize bad surveys* over good qualitative investigation**. BTW My partner is a market researcher with a qualitative focus. It seems the US qualitative market research community are way, way behind their European & Australian counterparts - mostly because the focus is on "quant" rather than "qual".

As you may know, I am a big fan of evidence-based approaches. However evidence takes many forms and I'd rather work with good qual than bad quant any day.

Cheers,

Matt

*I have to be careful what I say here because I am currently involved in not 1 but 2 survey data collection exercises.

**The survey fixation was identified by Webb et al at least as far back as 1966. It was discussed at length in the first edition of this classic: http://www.sagepub.com/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book10141




Thomas Blumer
 

Hi Arthur,

Very interesting to hear that you are working on your PhD focusing on the impact of behavior on knowledge transfer - and therefore on outcomes. I am working on my doctor in business administration (DBA) with the topic "Best practices for knowledge transfer in mergers and acquisitions: a phenomenological study." I started designing a quantitative study and quickly found, that I would not add real value with my approach and changed to a phenomenological study. As you stated, there are situations that are too complex to capture with quantitative surveys while people could easily talk about the observed experience.

There are many steps that can be included in a qualitative study to increase validity and reliability and even the academic world start embracing the qualitative counterpart as a serious discipline. It is quite amusing reading older research books like Thomas W. Lee "Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research" just to realize, that many people still have the same misconceptions about qualitative research than back in 1999 when the book was published.

As far as evidence from my research is concerned, I will apply my own finding within our company and see what works and what doesn't. Research should have a practical output. If my findings work indeed, I still could conduct a quantitative study to "verify" my findings. I guess one method can't really exist without the other...

BTW: I truly enjoy and recommend the book from Phil Rosenzweig "The halo effect" which illustrates nicely, even for non academics, what the issue with bad research designs is. The section about popular "research" driven business books like Jim Collins' "Good to Great" is quite amusing.

It would be great learning more about your research project. I will definitely listen to your presentation in February.

Good luck!

Thomas Blumer

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "Arthur Shelley" <arthur@...> wrote:

Murray,



I have been experimenting with some novel behavioural concepts in my
Knowledge Management classes which the students get a lot out of. They
learn that leading the right environment to generate the most appropriate
human interactions is more likely to stimulate success (and sometimes even
unexpected benefits). It is this type of article that we need to be
publishing more, the hard thing is it needs to be a reflective paper rather
than a "academically rigorous research article", because too much of the
rich learnings get lost when we can only talk about what can be measured
objectively. Despite story being more subjective and almost impossible to
"prove" (whatever that means), people understand them and are moved by them
much more than a dry piece of research.



Somehow we in academia (I am now back in academia doing a PhD in the impact
of behaviour on knowledge transfer - and therefore on outcomes) need to
understand how to make more impact from what we know. We should not be
trying to preach to each other in our own jargon, we need to use the
language of others to generate benefits for them from what we know. I
believe this is the very essence of "doing KM". If we don't make a
difference, then why are we doing what we do. For example why aren't KM'ers
the foundation advisors for the decision makers at Copenhagen? We should
chat sometime.

Regards

Arthur Shelley
Author: The Organizational Zoo A Survival Guide to Workplace Behavior and
Being a Successful Knowledge Leader What knowledge practitioners need to
know to make a difference.
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com> www.organizationalzoo.com
Twitter: Metaphorage
Ph +61 413 047 408

_____

From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: Thursday, 10 December 2009 5:20 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Perspectives on KM World conference





I want to second Arthur's observation! It appears to me that for once
academia and practice are in agreement as I know my journal, the
International Journal of KM, tends to a more people and organizational focus
and the conference track I chair at the Hawaii International Conference for
System Sciences, HICSS, titled Knowledge Management Systems, primarily
focuses on organizational and people issues (as well as technical issues).
I do think we are in a time where technology is catching up to what we need
it to do for us to further develop KM, but it will still be the
organizational and people issues that will be the hardest to
solve.....murray jennex



In a message dated 12/9/2009 6:35:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
arthur@... writes:






Allan,



Thanks for sharing these insights. It is great to see a strong emphasis on
people (and therefore behavior and social interactions) in every one of the
responses.

I also enjoyed seeing names of people I have had similar discussions with in
the past and that some of them have shifted their thinking (or at least
emphasis), even though they have changed roles/organisations (or perhaps
because of this). More on this in my Feb webinar.

Arthur

www.organizationalz <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/> oo.com

Tweeting as Metaphorage


On 10/12/2009, at 6:00, <allancrawford@
<mailto:allancrawford@...> mindspring.com> wrote:



I had the chance to interview Stan and a few others at the end of the recent
KM World conference. The interview question was simple -- what was your
main take away from the conference.



Here are a few of the responses:

Carla O'Dell (APQC): Video will make a big difference in how we share
knowledge..."YouTube has changed the world of KM"

Jim McGee: The return to the organizational dimension of KM and the shift
away from being enamored with technology

Bob Wimpfheimer (Dr Pepper): It has shifted how I think about KM.
Previously it has been storing documents and making them available... I've
come to see it's much more important to connect people with people

Jon Husband: After years of taking about how to reuse knowledge, optimize
it and classify it, people are beginning to understand that it's really not
very useful if people can't access it, share it and build upon it --- and
that involves learning. We are going to see blending of the disciplines we
now know as learning, KM, personal development, organizational change...

Eric Mack (ICA): The talk about social tools and social media...the primary
value of these social tools is in the connection they provide between other
peoples knowledge and the work we do.social networking tools allow us to
bridge the connection between our experience and knowledge and that of
others.

Patrick Lambe (Straits Knowledge): KM is in a long pause. It has reached
the limits of what it can do based on how we currently understand how
knowledge is use in organizations. It is still focused on individual
transactions and individual pieces of knowledge..it needs to get to grips
more with how organizations work as organisms.as thinking organisms. It is
touching that with the collective intelligence and wisdom of crowds stuff
but it is nowhere near sophisticated enough to show results.and I think that
is where it needs to go.

Stan Garfield (Deloitte): KM is definitely not dead.it's alive. But we
still have a lot of things to do.the things that I think are more important
than the technology is the leadership.the things we need to do to get people
to behave in a certain way to get communities to take off. These are
leadership issues.not technical challenges.

The consistent themes appear to be that KM is about connecting people to
people...KM is social... and success is dependant upon behaviors. Even with
the emergence of E2.0...techology is an important enablor for the
connections ("YouTube has changed KM")...but is not the center of KM.
Something that many members of the SIKM group have been saying for a long
time.

You can see the video complication of these interviews at www.kmisalive.
<http://www.kmisalive.com/> com