Stop the nonsense, KM doesn't exist. - blog from the ALkaME Research Group #research #name


dgkmedin <dgkmedin@...>
 

Hello all and thank you for your ongoing support.

This is our latest blog offering:

http://theknowledgecore.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/stop-the-nonsense-knowledge-management-doesnt-exist-we-are-knowledge-developers/

Any comments you might have on this or any of our blogs and/or our research papers are, as always, welcomed.

http://edinburgh.academia.edu/DavidGriffiths/Papers

We will have a new case study paper on KM in a MNC ready in the next week or so and I'll let you know when it's ready.

Thanks again for helping us as we mature our work --- 3 years of intense research and we finally believe we are getting somewhere, which is much better than nowhere...we hope.

Kind regards,

David

d.a.griffiths@...


Peter-Anthony <peteraglick@...>
 

Hi David

Sorry not to share your enthusiasm.
I have read (and re-read) your blog post and find it hard to get your point.
It seems to me that you are attempting to tell us (KMers) that "Knowledge Management" is the wrong name for our field because we cannot manage knowledge itself, but "only" the environment and the processes to facilitate knowledge processing/sharing.

If I'm correct then I'm afraid you are wasting your time: We (nearly) all agree with you! We've been aware of this for years now but too late to change the name (it would more confuse the people we need to convince rather than help our cause).

If I misunderstood you article, please clarify.

Best,

Peter-Anthony Glick

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

Hello all and thank you for your ongoing support.

This is our latest blog offering:

http://theknowledgecore.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/stop-the-nonsense-knowledge-management-doesnt-exist-we-are-knowledge-developers/

Any comments you might have on this or any of our blogs and/or our research papers are, as always, welcomed.

http://edinburgh.academia.edu/DavidGriffiths/Papers

We will have a new case study paper on KM in a MNC ready in the next week or so and I'll let you know when it's ready.

Thanks again for helping us as we mature our work --- 3 years of intense research and we finally believe we are getting somewhere, which is much better than nowhere...we hope.

Kind regards,

David

d.a.griffiths@...


Fred Nickols
 

I read your post and I read the blog at the link you provided. I agree that KM is misdirected and that knowledge itself cannot be managed - at least not in the same way we manage other things. As I indicated in my response on your blog, I hold that view for a slightly different reason.

Just as you say that knowledge management doesn't really exist, it can be argued that neither does knowledge (if you exclude all that stuff that's been codified in books, etc). The other kind of knowledge can be loosely defined as "a state of being" in one or more individuals. More important, that knowledge or state of being is something we infer about a person based on their behavior and performance. Thus, when we talk about KM as a way of getting Person B to perform in ways similar to Person A we miss the obvious point – which is to get Person B capable of approximating Person A's performance. We know how to do that and we've known how to do that for a long time. When it comes to KM, then, we might well ask Clara's question: "Where's the beef?"

Fred Nickols

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

Hello all and thank you for your ongoing support.

This is our latest blog offering:

http://theknowledgecore.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/stop-the-nonsense-knowledge-management-doesnt-exist-we-are-knowledge-developers/

Any comments you might have on this or any of our blogs and/or our research papers are, as always, welcomed.

http://edinburgh.academia.edu/DavidGriffiths/Papers

We will have a new case study paper on KM in a MNC ready in the next week or so and I'll let you know when it's ready.

Thanks again for helping us as we mature our work --- 3 years of intense research and we finally believe we are getting somewhere, which is much better than nowhere...we hope.

Kind regards,

David

d.a.griffiths@...


tombarfield75 <thomas.m.barfield@...>
 

At Accenture I've recently started using the term "social learning" in place of "knowledge management". Social Learning implies to me that we are about leveraging the experience and skills of other people and the experience in the organization to learn and get our jobs done.

What I like about "social learning" is that it implies an outcome -I am trying to learning/benefit thru others (whether it was documented or not). "Knowledge Management" kind of implies what we attempt to do but doesn't imply the outcome. "Social learning" also supports my continued belief that in many cases a strong connection between training and knowledge management makes a lot of sense.

The only significant concerns I hear is that KM is not limited to learning - we are also about enabling with content and collaboration to help them get their job done. I see the point but I feel I can broadly define learning as being much wider.

I have found that as I have started using the "social learning" term more that for some reason I have had an easier time explaining what I do to others - and in the end I seem to get a more positive response ("wow - that sounds interesting").

Using "learning" in place of "networking" has also helped to separate what we do from things like Facebook.

Tom


StevenWieneke <swieneke@...>
 

Tom,

Coincidently, I am just finishing a presentation for the Chicago Symposium titled "Which comes first learning or knowledge?" In my practice, I emphasize enterprise learning and knowledge awareness. The essence of enterprise learning is someone besides the initial learner adopts then adapts the new learning or the prevention to a lesson. Like Accenture's "social learning," enterprise learning is outcome based. I have also found "learning" is valued, easily understood and embraced than the term "knowledge management." A sustained, visible enterprise learning process requires managing the enterprise's knowledge (intellectual capital). The reverse is not necessarily true. To your point, knowledge often exists in an enterprise without the "enterprise learning."

Steve



--- In sikmleaders@..., "tombarfield75" wrote:
>
> At Accenture I've recently started using the term "social learning" in place of "knowledge management". Social Learning implies to me that we are about leveraging the experience and skills of other people and the experience in the organization to learn and get our jobs done.
>
> What I like about "social learning" is that it implies an outcome -I am trying to learning/benefit thru others (whether it was documented or not). "Knowledge Management" kind of implies what we attempt to do but doesn't imply the outcome. "Social learning" also supports my continued belief that in many cases a strong connection between training and knowledge management makes a lot of sense.
>
> The only significant concerns I hear is that KM is not limited to learning - we are also about enabling with content and collaboration to help them get their job done. I see the point but I feel I can broadly define learning as being much wider.
>
> I have found that as I have started using the "social learning" term more that for some reason I have had an easier time explaining what I do to others - and in the end I seem to get a more positive response ("wow - that sounds interesting").
>
> Using "learning" in place of "networking" has also helped to separate what we do from things like Facebook.
>
> Tom
>


Peter-Anthony <peteraglick@...>
 

Hi Tom

I like "social learning" and yes I think you can consider learning from a wider perspective than the commonly understood meaning.
It can include collaboration and access to content facilitation since these activities ultimately enable someone to learn something in order to reach an objective, even the "something learned" is that someone else can effectively help (through collaboration).

I have been using "leveraging knowledge" for the past 5yrs and as you wrote, social learning implies leveraging experiences and skills, therefore knowledge.

Best
Peter

Peter-Anthony Glick
http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

--- In sikmleaders@..., "tombarfield75" <thomas.m.barfield@...> wrote:

At Accenture I've recently started using the term "social learning" in place of "knowledge management". social Learning implies to me that we are about leveraging the experience and skills of other people and the experience in the organization to learn and get our jobs done.

What I like about "social learning" is that it implies an outcome -I am trying to learning/benefit thru others (whether it was documented or not). "Knowledge Management" kind of implies what we attempt to do but doesn't imply the outcome. "Social learning" also supports my continued belief that in many cases a strong connection between training and knowledge management makes a lot of sense.

The only significant concerns I hear is that KM is not limited to learning - we are also about enabling with content and collaboration to help them get their job done. I see the point but I feel I can broadly define learning as being much wider.

I have found that as I have started using the "social learning" term more that for some reason I have had an easier time explaining what I do to others - and in the end I seem to get a more positive response ("wow - that sounds interesting").

Using "learning" in place of "networking" has also helped to separate what we do from things like Facebook.

Tom


dgkmedin <dgkmedin@...>
 

Hello all,

Firstly, sorry its's taken so long for a response - catching up on emails and postings after a manic week.

This has been an interesting response, thank you. I understand where you are coming from, in so far as this possibly being a fruitless debate. Where I disagree is that we appear to have lost the field to technology - research I am conducting at the moment is pointing towards 91% of social media references to KM being linked to technology based intervention. This figure is repeated in the job market and seems to suggest a problem that needs to be addressed. I also agree that the term 'KM' has become embedded, but it is also misleading organisations and that, for me, is where the problem lies.

I've just come through a six month collaboration with one MNC who were convinced that KM would mean a technology revamp - their perception being that was how you 'did' KM.

That's what prompted us to write the SKRD article and focus our research on finding out what people perceived KM to actually be about versus what it should be about. This is where I've got the 91% figure and the research behind it will be available soon. If this is accepted as true then we as practitioners have some pretty serious obstacles to overcome. So, do we re-focus the field or swim upstream and fight the technology tide?

That's where I feel it is better to establish new ground and surrender KM to technology, which appears to be the case whether we like it or not.

Thanks again for the responses, both on this bord and via email. The conversation is really stimulating and there are some really good points of view coming through.

David


dgkmedin <dgkmedin@...>
 

Sorry, just realised that I haven't made the full SKRD article available in the blog. The following link takes you through to the full paper that we are delivering at UFHRD 2010 (June) in Pecs (Hungary):

http://edinburgh.academia.edu/DavidGriffiths/Papers/164846/Are-we-stuck-with-Knowledge-Management---A-case-for-Strategic-Knowledge-Resource-Development