Information Technology Representation in SIKM #discussion-starter


Frank <fmremski@...>
 

Greetings SIKM leaders!  I've been noodling a lot lately about the influence that IT has had on KM and vice versa (both good and bad). 

I'm wondering if there are many other IT representatives in SIKM?  Is KM think being taken seriously within your IT organization or is it only being used informally by "those in the know" as a grassroots solution? 

Would the IT folks in SIKM like to share in an "IT 12-step program" with me?...I'll go first:

  

Hi, I'm Frank…I've been in IT for 20 years specializing in Networking and Telecom. 

I became interested in KM after I learned it recognizes IT people as a thinking human beings rather than just expensive non-"standards-conforming" resources that should be working all day and on-call all night.  I'm using a grassroots approach to introduce KM, but am meeting passive-aggressive resistance from entrenched management every step of the way…they just don't seem to get it.

 

Who's next?


mikalito44 <michaelbierly@...>
 

Hi I'm Mike (hi mike) I have been in IT mostly around learning and KM for 16 years now in a strictly KM role. I value both roles but I get frustrated when KM people try to do the IT people's jobs without the technology background to understand the implications... similarly I get frustrated when IT isnt as responsive as they could be. But, overall, I find the two to work well together most of the time and have enjoyed both sides of the fence (though i am a tape on the glasses, pocket saver kind of geek at heart)

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Frank" <fmremski@...> wrote:


Greetings SIKM leaders! I've been noodling a lot lately about the
influence that IT has had on KM and vice versa (both good and bad).



I'm wondering if there are many other IT representatives in SIKM?
Is KM think being taken seriously within your IT organization or is it
only being used informally by "those in the know" as a
grassroots solution?



Would the IT folks in SIKM like to share in an "IT 12-step
program" with me?...I'll go first:



Hi, I'm Frank…I've been in IT for 20 years specializing in
Networking and Telecom.

I became interested in KM after I learned it recognizes IT people as a
thinking human beings rather than just expensive
non-"standards-conforming" resources that should be working all
day and on-call all night. I'm using a grassroots approach to
introduce KM, but am meeting passive-aggressive resistance from
entrenched management every step of the way…they just don't seem
to get it.





Who's next?


Steve Ellwood <steve@...>
 

Hi, I'm Steve, and I work in a large ICT corporate environment. During the day, I work as a solution designer; by night...
No, I'm no superhero but work on the periphery of the new KM Programme we're introducing.

There is a view that that KM requires "a technical solution" whether that be "Lotus Knows" or "Sharepoint 2010"; there's also a view that "it's all about the culture, man". Like most, I suspect, I see it as being somewhere between the two; the "2.0" stuff like wikis, perhaps blogs, micro-blogging stuff like Twitter, Yammer, or your preferred in house solution enables the easy sharing, finding, assessing and valuing of information; the use made of that information to deliver a business outcome can become part of our knowledge.

We're currently working on the culture part, and I think that's likely to be the big ask; in a big corporate culture change is *hard*. In http://steveellwood.com/2010/01/19/does-knowledge-management-matter/ I wonder if Brad Hinton's view that KM can be seen as a threat to some management approaches. In our case, I think we'll be OK.


Arthur Shelley
 

Hi Mike and Frank,
I invested 10 years in Quality, 10 years in international business process/IT Projects and then 10 years in Knowledge based performance improvement/behavioural area. I believe optimal performance comes from when you get the balance right between people, process and tools.

Too much emphasis on any at the expense of the others decreases performance from the potential. The trick is first figure out your desired outcomes, involve the right people, provide an appropriate process (ideally somewhat emergent) and then support this with tools that support efficient and effective delivery of the desired outcomes.  EASY!

Arthur
Tweeting as Metaphorage

On 21/01/2010, at 14:11, "mikalito44" <michaelbierly@...> wrote:

 

Hi I'm Mike (hi mike) I have been in IT mostly around learning and KM for 16 years now in a strictly KM role. I value both roles but I get frustrated when KM people try to do the IT people's jobs without the technology background to understand the implications... similarly I get frustrated when IT isnt as responsive as they could be. But, overall, I find the two to work well together most of the time and have enjoyed both sides of the fence (though i am a tape on the glasses, pocket saver kind of geek at heart)

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" .> wrote:
>
>
> Greetings SIKM leaders! I've been noodling a lot lately about the
> influence that IT has had on KM and vice versa (both good and bad).
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if there are many other IT representatives in SIKM?
> Is KM think being taken seriously within your IT organization or is it
> only being used informally by "those in the know" as a
> grassroots solution?
>
>
>
> Would the IT folks in SIKM like to share in an "IT 12-step
> program" with me?...I'll go first:
>
>
>
> Hi, I'm Frank…I've been in IT for 20 years specializing in
> Networking and Telecom.
>
> I became interested in KM after I learned it recognizes IT people as a
> thinking human beings rather than just expensive
> non-"standards-conforming" resources that should be working all
> day and on-call all night. I'm using a grassroots approach to
> introduce KM, but am meeting passive-aggressive resistance from
> entrenched management every step of the way…they just don't seem
> to get it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Who's next?
>


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Steve –

 

All those views, like the blind men and the elephant are incomplete.  ANY project, program, or organization needs five things to succeed: people, governance, work processes, and technology.  These four represent the organizational dimension of any activity, without which there can be no output. Neglect any one and success is unlikely.  They exist to increase the value of the central fifth element – content – (products and services) which are essential to serve clients.  Without satisfied clients, the organization has no reason to exist.

 

And, since knowledge is a human construct, people have to be at the heart of whatever you do.

 

Al Simard 


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Steve Ellwood
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:31 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re:+Information+Technology+Representation+in+SIKM

 

 

Hi, I'm Steve, and I work in a large ICT corporate environment. During
the day, I work as a solution designer; by night...
No, I'm no superhero but work on the periphery of the new KM Programme
we're introducing.

There is a view that that KM requires "a technical solution" whether
that be "Lotus Knows" or "Sharepoint 2010"; there's also a view that
"it's all about the culture, man". Like most, I suspect, I see it as
being somewhere between the two; the "2.0" stuff like wikis, perhaps
blogs, micro-blogging stuff like Twitter, Yammer, or your preferred in
house solution enables the easy sharing, finding, assessing and valuing
of information; the use made of that information to deliver a business
outcome can become part of our knowledge.

We're currently working on the culture part, and I think that's likely
to be the big ask; in a big corporate culture change is *hard*. In
http://steveellwood.com/2010/01/19/does-knowledge-management-matter/ I
wonder if Brad Hinton's view that KM can be seen as a threat to some
management approaches. In our case, I think we'll be OK.


Murray Jennex
 

I am a tech guy and have worked both IS and user sides.  I also believe that both tech and people side are needed in most situations, but, I just presented a paper at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, on using KM in rural Thai villages to create self sustaining villages.  This KM was very low tech and was based on physical topic maps.  However, a sat phone was provided and about 1 hour of connect time a week provided so that the villages could pull info off of the web and also connect to a special web site for the villages.
 
Guess this says that some tech is always needed, even in villages with no running water, but it doesn't have to be a lot.  It also says the people processes are crucial.
 
My own experience in the utility industry is that tech is needed, you have to have good infrastructure, but the people processes are crucial.
 
I published a model a few years ago where I called the tech side Organizational Memory.  OM tends to be the infrastructure/tech side of managing knowledge and memory.  KM was placed on the user side as it reflected the end user tech and more importantly the KM strategy and processes needed to manage knowledge.  The model had Organizational Effectiveness at the top of a triangle where the base was formed by KM and OM and reflected that for KM/OM to be successful knowledge needed to be used and put in action with a resulting impact on the organization.  Positive impacts drove capturing and using more of the demonstrated useful knowledge while negative impacts drove organizations to purge/forget non-useful knowledge.
 
I can share more if you'all are interested. 
 
Murray E. Jennex
San Diego State University
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 1/21/2010 6:59:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, ajgent@... writes:



Hi Al,

>>ANY project, program, or organization needs five things to succeed: people, governance, work processes, and technology.

I am going to play devil's advocate and say any project, program, or organization MAY need those things. Of course people are needed. But I don't believe technology is necessary. Also, in a number of cases the governance and work processes may be implicit rather than explicit (and therefore "invisible" to the participants).

I mention this because I went from doing KM in a large corporation to a very small company and observing more closely the behaviour of non-commercial entities and ad hoc groups (such as this one).

Of course, for organizations/groups of any significant size, technology and explicit rules of governance and work processes become essential. But that adds more than a single level of complexity: you must consider both the "official" and the unofficial/implicit rules and processes. For small organizations, technology of almost any kind can be overwhelming.

--Andrew Gent



Andrew Gent <ajgent@...>
 

Hi Al,

>>ANY project, program, or organization needs five things to succeed: people, governance, work processes, and technology.

I am going to play devil's advocate and say any project, program, or organization MAY need those things. Of course people are needed. But I don't believe technology is necessary. Also, in a number of cases the governance and work processes may be implicit rather than explicit (and therefore "invisible" to the participants).

I mention this because I went from doing KM in a large corporation to a very small company and observing more closely the behaviour of non-commercial entities and ad hoc groups (such as this one).

Of course, for organizations/groups of any significant size, technology and explicit rules of governance and work processes become essential. But that adds more than a single level of complexity: you must consider both the "official" and the unofficial/implicit rules and processes. For small organizations, technology of almost any kind can be overwhelming.

--Andrew Gent



Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Andrew –

 

While I deliberately put technology last, to convey a sense that everything else should be in order first, (to avoid simply speeding up the mess) I don’t see how any entity can function efficiently or effectively in today’s environment without technology.  Technology has become like electricity – an essential infrastructure.  Yes, just as a carpenter can work with hand tools, one can run a small organization without computers and communications.  People are doing that in Haiti today because there is no alternative, but they won’t be competitive in today’s normal socioeconomic environment.  Even individuals are becoming increasingly dependent on their cell phones and social networks.  And whether explicit or implicit, resources have to come from somewhere, someone needs to lead and make decisions even if the work is altruistic, and there needs to be a way to get work done.  Yes – even NGOs, charities, and volunteer groups need the five elements.

 

 Al


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Andrew Gent
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:59 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re:+Information+Technology+Representation+in+SIKM

 

 

Hi Al,

>>ANY project, program, or organization needs five things to succeed: people, governance, work processes, and technology.

I am going to play devil's advocate and say any project, program, or organization MAY need those things. Of course people are needed. But I don't believe technology is necessary. Also, in a number of cases the governance and work processes may be implicit rather than explicit (and therefore "invisible" to the participants).

I mention this because I went from doing KM in a large corporation to a very small company and observing more closely the behaviour of non-commercial entities and ad hoc groups (such as this one).

Of course, for organizations/groups of any significant size, technology and explicit rules of governance and work processes become essential. But that adds more than a single level of complexity: you must consider both the "official" and the unofficial/implicit rules and processes. For small organizations, technology of almost any kind can be overwhelming.

--Andrew Gent

 

 


Frank <fmremski@...>
 

Thanks for sharing Mike, Arthur, Steve, Al, and Andrew.

 

Please don't be shy, everyone has something worth sharing.  I particularly appreciate Mike's comments about being frustrated when IT is not as responsive as it could be.  I see far too many purely bureaurcratic, rubberstamp processes that atificially impose delays, burn countless hours in unproductive meetings, and hobble IT productivity in the name of quality control and risk avoidance.  Peer review and individual credibility (eg: reward the reliable and assist the unreliable in finding alternative careers) seem more appropriate ways for managing IT's highly paid knowledge workers [imho].

 

I find the whole IT/KM relationship extremely important and interesting.  On one hand, we have the Open Source camp that seems to eat, sleep, and breathe peer collaboration, trust, and self-organization; on the other there's the corporate IT world that (mostly?) still adheres to strict structure, control, and top-down hierarchy.   Steven Denning's "Radical Management" work is certainly encouraging, but why is it taking so long for IT to embrace KM?  Put another way, why hasn't KM received the same attention as ITIL?

 


--- In sikmleaders@..., "Frank" wrote:
>
>
> Greetings SIKM leaders! I've been noodling a lot lately about the
> influence that IT has had on KM and vice versa (both good and bad).
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if there are many other IT representatives in SIKM?
> Is KM think being taken seriously within your IT organization or is it
> only being used informally by "those in the know" as a
> grassroots solution?
>
>
>
> Would the IT folks in SIKM like to share in an "IT 12-step
> program" with me?...I'll go first:
>
>
>
> Hi, I'm Frank…I've been in IT for 20 years specializing in
> Networking and Telecom.
>
> I became interested in KM after I learned it recognizes IT people as a
> thinking human beings rather than just expensive
> non-"standards-conforming" resources that should be working all
> day and on-call all night. I'm using a grassroots approach to
> introduce KM, but am meeting passive-aggressive resistance from
> entrenched management every step of the way…they just don't seem
> to get it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Who's next?
>


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

I hearken back to the invention of the printing press.  I forgot where I read this (apologies to the author).  It says something about retention of meaningful stories, however.  In the first half-century after the printing press was invented, those who know how to print became rich but by the end of the first century, those who decided what to print got rich.  

 

Now fast forward to today.  I have worked for more than one organization where IT is still a control rather than an enabling process.  Computers have been around for a half century, still unable to fulfill the promise of solving all our problems, if only the technology were big and fast enough.  Around the turn of this century, the technology vs culture argument began in earnest, with a gradual shift towards culture.  I expect that shift to continue, despite rear-guard actions by those with a vested interest in the status quol.  I also expect that, like the nature vs nurture argument, the discourse will eventually settle in a region where the two are in balance. 

 

However, IT shops are firmly entrenched in many organizations and will not cede their place at the head of the table easily or willingly.   We just have to live long enough to see the outcome.

 

Al Simard 


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Frank
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:55 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Information Technology Representation in SIKM

 

 

Thanks for sharing Mike, Arthur, Steve, Al, and Andrew.

 

Please don't be shy, everyone has something worth sharing.  I particularly appreciate Mike's comments about being frustrated when IT is not as responsive as it could be.  I see far too many purely bureaurcratic, rubberstamp processes that atificially impose delays, burn countless hours in unproductive meetings, and hobble IT productivity in the name of quality control and risk avoidance.  Peer review and individual credibility (eg: reward the reliable and assist the unreliable in finding alternative careers) seem more appropriate ways for managing IT's highly paid knowledge workers [imho].

 

I find the whole IT/KM relationship extremely important and interesting.  On one hand, we have the Open Source camp that seems to eat, sleep, and breathe peer collaboration, trust, and self-organization; on the other there's the corporate IT world that (mostly?) still adheres to strict structure, control, and top-down hierarchy.   Steven Denning's "Radical Management" work is certainly encouraging, but why is it taking so long for IT to embrace KM?  Put another way, why hasn't KM received the same attention as ITIL?

 


--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" wrote:
>
>
> Greetings SIKM leaders! I've been noodling a lot lately about the
> influence that IT has had on KM and vice versa (both good and bad).
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if there are many other IT representatives in SIKM?
> Is KM think being taken seriously within your IT organization or is it
> only being used informally by "those in the know" as a
> grassroots solution?
>
>
>
> Would the IT folks in SIKM like to share in an "IT 12-step
> program" with me?...I'll go first:
>
>
>
> Hi, I'm Frank…I've been in IT for 20 years specializing in
> Networking and Telecom.
>
> I became interested in KM after I learned it recognizes IT people as a
> thinking human beings rather than just expensive
> non-"standards-conforming" resources that should be working all
> day and on-call all night. I'm using a grassroots approach to
> introduce KM, but am meeting passive-aggressive resistance from
> entrenched management every step of the way…they just don't seem
> to get it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Who's next?
>


mjhaggs <matt.haggerty@...>
 

Hola mis amigos,

Matt Haggerty here with Ridgehead Software.  I come from the ITKM side, but am fascinated at the broader implications of KM throughout the Enterprise (EKM). 

Frank, here is a bit of info that hopefully sells you and others that KM is firmly embedded in the IT org...

One of the trends sweeping call centers is Knowledge Centered Support (KCS).  The Consortium for Service Innovation (www.serviceinnovation.org) are the thought leaders behind KCS.  The basic premise is to document the knowledge (capture/collect/extract), make it searchable (keyword/phrase/browse/index), and expose it to end users to drive calls and costs down while getting folks back to work faster.  It gets a wee more complex as you mature the KCS environment.  Plenty of case studies and materials can be found at the aforementioned website. 

According to a Help Desk Institute 2009 survey of over 1,000 organizations (contact me directly for the PDF), 90% of respondents indicate that KM software is required for an effective support organization.  Only 24% indicate that they "Do not have a Knowledge Management tool".  The tools are getting fairly sophisticated, too.  I've been involved with projects where we developed a Chat Bot allowing end users to directly query the Knowledge Base from Sametime, bypassing human interaction.  My favorite is recording a video when an agent remotely takes over an end user's desktop.  We then automatically convert the audio to text, add it to the knowledge base as an article, and artificially bubble the content to the top of the relevant search rankings, and when users click on the title, not only is the text displayed, but they have the option to watch an embedded video with the agent showing and telling how to perform the IT function.

The main difference I've found so far between ITKM and EKM is the innovative sparks that occur at the EKM level.  ITKM is there to support, drive calls down, and give a tool for agents and end users to quickly find answers that have already been answered.  EKM is more collaborative, innovative, and well, if you're reading this, you already know the rest.
 
Cheers, Matt





--- In sikmleaders@..., "Frank" wrote:
>
>
> Greetings SIKM leaders! I've been noodling a lot lately about the
> influence that IT has had on KM and vice versa (both good and bad).
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if there are many other IT representatives in SIKM?
> Is KM think being taken seriously within your IT organization or is it
> only being used informally by "those in the know" as a
> grassroots solution?
>
>
>
> Would the IT folks in SIKM like to share in an "IT 12-step
> program" with me?...I'll go first:
>
>
>
> Hi, I'm Frank…I've been in IT for 20 years specializing in
> Networking and Telecom.
>
> I became interested in KM after I learned it recognizes IT people as a
> thinking human beings rather than just expensive
> non-"standards-conforming" resources that should be working all
> day and on-call all night. I'm using a grassroots approach to
> introduce KM, but am meeting passive-aggressive resistance from
> entrenched management every step of the way…they just don't seem
> to get it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Who's next?
>


Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
 

[Warning: the following post may contain ranting]

I am not a tech guy but I have worked with a lot of tech folk. I believe that you can do KM with a note pad, a pen & an enquiring mind* but I also recognise that technology can be a very powerful enabler.

The issue I see in organizations is that discussing technical IT issues is non-confronting whereas dealing with organizational & people issues is painful. Human nature being what it is, people focus on the stuff that's easier to talk about. This isn't unique to KM. Many big ERP implementations were all about process standardization across multiple business units. But getting everyone to do the same thing is a messy, difficult political exercise. So the focus went on the software - and many organizations ended up with multiple versions of their ERP system installed, millions spent and still no common processes. Of course, the software makes a great scapegoat when everything goes wrong. Many installations of Enterprise Search also fall into this category - the tool itself is adequate but the search experience is still terrible because i. it hasn't been implemented properly & ii. the underlying content is a mess. But organizations tell themselves (& vendors
are happy to play along with this game) that they need a new search tool.

There's a lot of "magical thinking" about technology in the business world. Staff at one recent client of mine had difficulty understanding that a document management system would not magically fix their shared drive mess (an its lack of structure, policies and ownership) and that some effort on their part would be required (N.B. I'm not saying they don't need a DM system - just that they need to do a bunch of other stuff too). This is bad for businesspeople and bad for technologists. It's bad for businesspeople because they focus their attention in the wrong place. It's bad for technologists because they get the blame (sometimes unfairly) when the results aren't magical. And none of this is new - we've experienced these recurring problems for the last 20-30 years. We have developed tools to combat this (all the panoply of change management & user-centred design tools) but we still don't seem to get it. Part of me suspects that human nature can never let
go of magical thought - it's just what we do.

*Whenever people whine about not having the right tools, I always think of Jean-Dominique Bauby. This man *blinked* an entire book. It took him ten months (2 mins a word). How bad was your problem again?


Andre Galitsky <andregalitsky@...>
 

Murray, I'd like to read more about your OM idea - please share the details on where we can access your paper.  Thanks,
 
Andre Galitsky


--- On Thu, 1/21/10, murphjen@... wrote:

From: murphjen@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re:+Information+Technology+Representation+in+SIKM
To: sikmleaders@...
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 1:32 PM



I am a tech guy and have worked both IS and user sides.  I also believe that both tech and people side are needed in most situations, but, I just presented a paper at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, on using KM in rural Thai villages to create self sustaining villages.  This KM was very low tech and was based on physical topic maps.  However, a sat phone was provided and about 1 hour of connect time a week provided so that the villages could pull info off of the web and also connect to a special web site for the villages.
 
Guess this says that some tech is always needed, even in villages with no running water, but it doesn't have to be a lot.  It also says the people processes are crucial.
 
My own experience in the utility industry is that tech is needed, you have to have good infrastructure, but the people processes are crucial.
 
I published a model a few years ago where I called the tech side Organizational Memory.  OM tends to be the infrastructure/tech side of managing knowledge and memory.  KM was placed on the user side as it reflected the end user tech and more importantly the KM strategy and processes needed to manage knowledge.  The model had Organizational Effectiveness at the top of a triangle where the base was formed by KM and OM and reflected that for KM/OM to be successful knowledge needed to be used and put in action with a resulting impact on the organization.  Positive impacts drove capturing and using more of the demonstrated useful knowledge while negative impacts drove organizations to purge/forget non-useful knowledge.
 
I can share more if you'all are interested. 
 
Murray E. Jennex
San Diego State University
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 1/21/2010 6:59:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, ajgent@... writes:


Hi Al,

>>ANY project, program, or organization needs five things to succeed: people, governance, work processes, and technology.

I am going to play devil's advocate and say any project, program, or organization MAY need those things. Of course people are needed. But I don't believe technology is necessary. Also, in a number of cases the governance and work processes may be implicit rather than explicit (and therefore "invisible" to the participants).

I mention this because I went from doing KM in a large corporation to a very small company and observing more closely the behaviour of non-commercial entities and ad hoc groups (such as this one).

Of course, for organizations/groups of any significant size, technology and explicit rules of governance and work processes become essential. But that adds more than a single level of complexity: you must consider both the "official" and the unofficial/implicit rules and processes. For small organizations, technology of almost any kind can be overwhelming.

--Andrew Gent





Frank <fmremski@...>
 

Thanks for your input Murray. On a side note, I honestly suspect that
these rural Thai villages were more open to KM than some corporate IT
organizations. A link to your HICSS paper would be greatly appreciated
if available on the web.

Frank


Murray Jennex
 

Andre,
 
The model I described is included in the attached book chapter (about 4 pages in), this chapter is an intro to a KM book I edited.  Thanks...murray
 
In a message dated 1/21/2010 1:04:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, andregalitsky@... writes:



Murray, I'd like to read more about your OM idea - please share the details on where we can access your paper.  Thanks,
 
Andre Galitsky

--- On Thu, 1/21/10, murphjen@... wrote:

From: murphjen@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re:+Information+Technology+Representation+in+SIKM
To: sikmleaders@...
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 1:32 PM



I am a tech guy and have worked both IS and user sides.  I also believe that both tech and people side are needed in most situations, but, I just presented a paper at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, on using KM in rural Thai villages to create self sustaining villages.  This KM was very low tech and was based on physical topic maps.  However, a sat phone was provided and about 1 hour of connect time a week provided so that the villages could pull info off of the web and also connect to a special web site for the villages.
 
Guess this says that some tech is always needed, even in villages with no running water, but it doesn't have to be a lot.  It also says the people processes are crucial.
 
My own experience in the utility industry is that tech is needed, you have to have good infrastructure, but the people processes are crucial.
 
I published a model a few years ago where I called the tech side Organizational Memory.  OM tends to be the infrastructure/tech side of managing knowledge and memory.  KM was placed on the user side as it reflected the end user tech and more importantly the KM strategy and processes needed to manage knowledge.  The model had Organizational Effectiveness at the top of a triangle where the base was formed by KM and OM and reflected that for KM/OM to be successful knowledge needed to be used and put in action with a resulting impact on the organization.  Positive impacts drove capturing and using more of the demonstrated useful knowledge while negative impacts drove organizations to purge/forget non-useful knowledge.
 
I can share more if you'all are interested. 
 
Murray E. Jennex
San Diego State University
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 1/21/2010 6:59:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, ajgent@... writes:


Hi Al,

>>ANY project, program, or organization needs five things to succeed: people, governance, work processes, and technology.

I am going to play devil's advocate and say any project, program, or organization MAY need those things. Of course people are needed. But I don't believe technology is necessary. Also, in a number of cases the governance and work processes may be implicit rather than explicit (and therefore "invisible" to the participants).

I mention this because I went from doing KM in a large corporation to a very small company and observing more closely the behaviour of non-commercial entities and ad hoc groups (such as this one).

Of course, for organizations/groups of any significant size, technology and explicit rules of governance and work processes become essential. But that adds more than a single level of complexity: you must consider both the "official" and the unofficial/implicit rules and processes. For small organizations, technology of almost any kind can be overwhelming.

--Andrew Gent