Knowledge Architecture #metadata
|
Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
Greetings One & All –
Please ignore this if you’ve already seen the message in another group.
I am on a quest. In DRDC, KM is positioned in the IT shop. IT types understand IT architecture and information architecture and would like something similar for KM. There are also well-defined data architectures and system architectures (e.g., DSS, ES…). In briefly scanning the literature, however, knowledge architecture seems to be in a similar state to KM when I started in this business 14 years ago: I found a few bits, but not all that much. I was surprised that I didn’t even find anything on Wikipedia!
So, although all of the above can be used as jumping-off points for structured aspects of a knowledge architecture, really important things happen when one builds on a network rather than transactional foundation and knowledge workers become the center of the process rather than recipients of system outputs. And I suspect that the architecture changes substantially (or at least emphasis shifts substantially) as situations shift through Snowden’s four orders of knowledge.
If anyone has articles, documents, or other material on knowledge architecture that they can share, I would be very grateful.
Thanks
Albert J. Simard, Ph.D. Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir
Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada 305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11 Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2 Canada Tel: 613-943-3501 Fax: 613-996-7063 e-mail: albert.simard@...
|
|
|
|
Tom Reamy <tomr@...>
As someone who named my company for the practice of knowledge architecture (KAPS = Knowledge Architecture Professional Services), I share your surprise at the lack of material and/or people interested in doing it. There are a number of articles and presentations on the KAPS web site which you can use to get a start on my take on KA, but one likely reason for the lack of interest in KA is that there are at least two main approaches to it – one (which I tend to follow) starts with building a foundation for knowledge representations (from taxonomies, ontologies, concept maps, knowledge maps, etc. to current text analytics based efforts). The idea is that this foundation is needed before you shift focus to the personal knowledge sharing activities that make up the second basic approach. And there are a lot of people who think that any attempt at actually building knowledge representations is antithetical to “real” KM, which is based on ideas of tacit knowledge (a really misused idea) and/or the DIKW hierarchy which banishes all attempts at codification or explicit knowledge to the realm of “mere information”.
At least, that’s my not so unbiased view of the situation.
Another aspect of this split is that while we have developed some really sophisticated text analytics and semantic web kinds of representations, those get dismissed with the mere information label, but on the other hand, there haven’t been as successful structural or architectural approaches to supporting direct human to human knowledge sharing. There are probably other historical factors as well – like what kinds of people are attracted to K management versus K architecture.
I started a thread on the KMGov list a few years ago about what people thought KA was, but it became clear that there was no agreed upon definition of KA.
It would be nice to see a revival of interest in knowledge architecture – so, Albert, I’m glad you brought it up
Tom
Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group, LLC 510-530-8270 (O) 510-530-8272 (Fax) 510-333-2458 (M)
From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Simard, Albert
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 6:51 AM To: sikmleaders@... Subject: [sikmleaders] Knowledge Architecture
Greetings One & All –
Please ignore this if you’ve already seen the message in another group.
I am on a quest. In DRDC, KM is positioned in the IT shop. IT types understand IT architecture and information architecture and would like something similar for KM. There are also well-defined data architectures and system architectures (e.g., DSS, ES…). In briefly scanning the literature, however, knowledge architecture seems to be in a similar state to KM when I started in this business 14 years ago: I found a few bits, but not all that much. I was surprised that I didn’t even find anything on Wikipedia!
So, although all of the above can be used as jumping-off points for structured aspects of a knowledge architecture, really important things happen when one builds on a network rather than transactional foundation and knowledge workers become the center of the process rather than recipients of system outputs. And I suspect that the architecture changes substantially (or at least emphasis shifts substantially) as situations shift through Snowden’s four orders of knowledge.
If anyone has articles, documents, or other material on knowledge architecture that they can share, I would be very grateful.
Thanks
Albert J. Simard, Ph.D. Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir
Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada 305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11 Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2 Canada Tel: 613-943-3501 Fax: 613-996-7063 e-mail: albert.simard@...
|
|
|
|
Steve Ardire <sardire@...>
> If anyone has articles, documents, or other material on knowledge architecture that they can share, I would be very grateful.
Check out Method for an Integrated Knowledge Environment ( MIKE 2.0 ) an open source methodology for Enterprise Information Management that provides a framework for information development
The Semantic Enterprise Composite Offering may be closest to your interest on knowledge architecture
Also see SemanticTechnology Conference http://semtech2011.semanticweb.com/ the world's largest, most authoritative conference on semantic technology for enterprise computing professionals. It covers every major technology and application area you’ll need to know.
Steve Ardire http://www.linkedin.com/in/sardire
PS - Snowden's offering while credible and useful has little in way of knowledge architecture per se
|
|
|
|
Murray Jennex
I agree that you do not see much on KA but I think its because architecting
systems is a relatively new way of saying building an integrated
infrastructure. The academic KM literature, mine included, has been
stating for many years that the main Critical Success Factors for KM are an
integrated technical infrastructure (networks, storage,
display), enterprise data model (all the ontologies, taxonomies,
representations listed below), and a knowledge strategy that identifies a
representation strategy, sources, users, and capture processes. To
me, combining these 3 CSFs creates a KA, okay, maybe add in the KM
governance for the top view. So I guess I'm saying that while the
literature isn't full of KA references, it is full of references to KA
components going by different names....murray jennex
In a message dated 5/31/2011 11:47:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tomr@... writes:
|
|
|
|
Stephen Bounds
Hi Albert & others,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The basic problem I have with the premise of your question is data architectures and system architectures don't change if you don't modify them. To a slightly lesser extent this is also true of information architecture. But ... the idea of a "knowledge architecture" is an awkward term which doesn't really fit with our real life experience of how knowledge works -- that is, as an intrinsic and constantly evolving component of the networks that make the organisation function. To use an extended metaphor: We could talk about a "tree architecture". We could probably even, with some clever use of steel sheeting, even force a tree to grow in a rigid pattern of 90 degree angles. But it wouldn't improve the effectiveness of the tree, nor would that tree's architecture be maintained after you stopped actively used the steel sheets. I would argue that when dealing with knowledge, we are in the realm of "curation" or "culturing" rather than "architecting". Cheers, -- Stephen.
On 31/05/2011 11:50 PM, Simard, Albert wrote:
Greetings One & All
|
|
|
|
TRflanagan@...
Al
The list of five components of knowledge architecture which you offer us
parallels ... hardware, software, data, procedures, people ... which is a model
of management information systems in business course texts. Perhaps
considering both lists concurrently might enrich distinctions that you are
seeking to explain.
Cheers;
Tom
In a message dated 6/1/2011 1:08:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
albert.simard@... writes:
|
|
|
|
Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
Tom –
Thanks for helping me to clarify my thinking.
Your description of knowledge architecture clearly responds to the question that I asked. And If I were to look at the academic literature more deeply, I would, no doubt find a lot of material on this subject (although not necessarily with that label). And I quite agree that if one doesn’t understand the stuff that one is trying to manage, the chances of getting it right are slim to none. And rest assured that I will visit your website!
Now, the question that I was thinking about relates to systems architecture for knowledge services to support creating, managing, and using knowledge – a significantly different (and broader) subject. At this time I will probably use five views (architecturespeak for perspectives, like plumbing, wiring, framing, etc.). The five that I am considering are: people (individuals, groups, organization), governance (authority, roles, resources…), work processes (monitor the environment, establish projects, provide advice…), systems (computers, applications, connectivity…), and content (capture, organize, preserve, share…). I may have to add a security and other views, but five is enough to start with.
Al
From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Tom Reamy
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:47 PM To: sikmleaders@... Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Knowledge Architecture
As someone who named my company for the practice of knowledge architecture (KAPS = Knowledge Architecture Professional Services), I share your surprise at the lack of material and/or people interested in doing it. There are a number of articles and presentations on the KAPS web site which you can use to get a start on my take on KA, but one likely reason for the lack of interest in KA is that there are at least two main approaches to it – one (which I tend to follow) starts with building a foundation for knowledge representations (from taxonomies, ontologies, concept maps, knowledge maps, etc. to current text analytics based efforts). The idea is that this foundation is needed before you shift focus to the personal knowledge sharing activities that make up the second basic approach. And there are a lot of people who think that any attempt at actually building knowledge representations is antithetical to “real” KM, which is based on ideas of tacit knowledge (a really misused idea) and/or the DIKW hierarchy which banishes all attempts at codification or explicit knowledge to the realm of “mere information”.
At least, that’s my not so unbiased view of the situation.
Another aspect of this split is that while we have developed some really sophisticated text analytics and semantic web kinds of representations, those get dismissed with the mere information label, but on the other hand, there haven’t been as successful structural or architectural approaches to supporting direct human to human knowledge sharing. There are probably other historical factors as well – like what kinds of people are attracted to K management versus K architecture.
I started a thread on the KMGov list a few years ago about what people thought KA was, but it became clear that there was no agreed upon definition of KA.
It would be nice to see a revival of interest in knowledge architecture – so, Albert, I’m glad you brought it up
Tom
Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group, LLC 510-530-8270 (O) 510-530-8272 (Fax) 510-333-2458 (M)
From: sikmleaders@...
[mailto:sikmleaders@...]
On Behalf Of Simard, Albert
Greetings One & All –
Please ignore this if you’ve already seen the message in another group.
I am on a quest. In DRDC, KM is positioned in the IT shop. IT types understand IT architecture and information architecture and would like something similar for KM. There are also well-defined data architectures and system architectures (e.g., DSS, ES…). In briefly scanning the literature, however, knowledge architecture seems to be in a similar state to KM when I started in this business 14 years ago: I found a few bits, but not all that much. I was surprised that I didn’t even find anything on Wikipedia!
So, although all of the above can be used as jumping-off points for structured aspects of a knowledge architecture, really important things happen when one builds on a network rather than transactional foundation and knowledge workers become the center of the process rather than recipients of system outputs. And I suspect that the architecture changes substantially (or at least emphasis shifts substantially) as situations shift through Snowden’s four orders of knowledge.
If anyone has articles, documents, or other material on knowledge architecture that they can share, I would be very grateful.
Thanks
Albert J. Simard, Ph.D. Knowledge Manager / Gestionnaire du savoir
Defence R&D Canada - / R&D pour la defense Canada 305 Rideau St., 9th floor - AH11 / 305 rue Rideau, 9 ieme etage -AH11 Ottawa, Ontatio K1A 0K2 Canada Tel: 613-943-3501 Fax: 613-996-7063 e-mail: albert.simard@...
|
|
|
|
Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
Right on, Stephen.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
And this is my challenge. I work in a highly structured context (both functionally and organizationally). Although KM emerged from a linear, structured world (managing explicit knowledge), it is evolving to a nonlinear, unstructured process. The question I am wrestling with is how does one portray structured knowledge services that support unstructured knowledge work? BTW - I have tried to explain that traditional architectures don't work for KM but structured thinkers simply cannot accept such a radical idea! Al
-----Original Message-----
From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:21 AM To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Knowledge Architecture Hi Albert & others, The basic problem I have with the premise of your question is data architectures and system architectures don't change if you don't modify them. To a slightly lesser extent this is also true of information architecture. But ... the idea of a "knowledge architecture" is an awkward term which doesn't really fit with our real life experience of how knowledge works -- that is, as an intrinsic and constantly evolving component of the networks that make the organisation function. To use an extended metaphor: We could talk about a "tree architecture". We could probably even, with some clever use of steel sheeting, even force a tree to grow in a rigid pattern of 90 degree angles. But it wouldn't improve the effectiveness of the tree, nor would that tree's architecture be maintained after you stopped actively used the steel sheets. I would argue that when dealing with knowledge, we are in the realm of "curation" or "culturing" rather than "architecting". Cheers, -- Stephen. On 31/05/2011 11:50 PM, Simard, Albert wrote: Greetings One & All -group./ architectures and system architectures (e.g., DSS, ES...). In briefly scanning thefew bits, but not all that much. I was surprised that I didn't even findthings happen when one builds on a network rather than transactionalfoundation and knowledge workers become the center of the process rather than<mailto:albert.simard@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links
|
|
|
|
Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
Tom –
Thanks. I’ve gathered a bunch of articles on various existing types of architecture to provide ideas as a point of departure. If nothing else, it provides a good literature review. And, now, thanks to this group, I have more material to consider. I didn’t invent those five elements; I’ve seen varieties of that list in all sorts of places, which suggests that it is probably a pretty good foundation.
Al
From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of TRflanagan@...
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:19 PM To: sikmleaders@... Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Knowledge Architecture
Al
The list of five components of knowledge architecture which you offer us parallels ... hardware, software, data, procedures, people ... which is a model of management information systems in business course texts. Perhaps considering both lists concurrently might enrich distinctions that you are seeking to explain. Cheers; Tom
In a message dated 6/1/2011 1:08:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, albert.simard@... writes:
|
|
|
|
Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
Steve -
Thanks for the links.
You are correct – Snowden’s orders of knowledge is not an architecture. But it seems to me that the nature of knowledge work (hence the services that need to be provided) is quite different as I shift from structured to unstructured processes: classifying, interpreting, understanding, or adapting to inputs.
From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Steve Ardire
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:46 PM To: sikmleaders@... Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Knowledge Architecture
> If anyone has articles, documents, or other material on knowledge architecture that they can share, I would be very grateful.
Check out Method for an Integrated Knowledge Environment ( MIKE 2.0 ) an open source methodology for Enterprise Information Management that provides a framework for information development
The Semantic Enterprise Composite Offering may be closest to your interest on knowledge architecture
Also see SemanticTechnology Conference http://semtech2011.semanticweb.com/ the world's largest, most authoritative conference on semantic technology for enterprise computing professionals. It covers every major technology and application area you’ll need to know.
Steve Ardire
PS - Snowden's offering while credible and useful has little in way of knowledge architecture per se
|
|
|
|
Stephen Bounds
Hi Albert,
Ah, I sympathize with you -- that's a difficult challenge! I don't think it's an accident that Cynefin was developed while Dave S worked at IBM. It's most valuable aspect is as a sales tool for people used to structured management thinking. Cynefin takes people on a mental journey from Simple and Complicated ("stuff you understand how to manage") to Complex and Chaotic ("and here's where your normal rules break down"). You explained some of your thinking in another email: At this time I will probably use five views ... people (individuals,I can see this working, but this approach tends to separate KM from the actual "work" of the business. I always feel that KM works best when people understand how it fits into "real work". I have a generic model I use for representing the problem solving process (eg see http://bounds.net.au/node/58) which could be shoehorned into an architecture if required: organisation governance problem identification knowledge processes information processes business processes Just a thought -- happy to discuss further if you're interested. Cheers, -- Stephen. On 2/06/2011 3:33 AM, Simard, Albert wrote: Right on, Stephen.
|
|
|
|
Hi Al,
There are two ways to think about KA representation: theoretical and practical. By 'practical' I mean business-specific. It's pretty easy to think of many types of theoretical KA approaches; Dewey Decimal system being one. Here is an excerpt of my current best practice research discussing Knowledge Organization Systems. "Knowledge Organization Systems fall into three broad categories: . term lists (e.g. dictionaries, encyclopaedias, glossaries), . classification and categorization systems (e.g. taxonomies, file classification systems, subject headings), and . relationship systems (e.g. thesauri, ontologies, semantic networks). Organizations, particularly public sector organizations have always used classification and categorization systems (esp. file/records classification systems) for the management and accessibility of their information. While this works reasonably well in the world of physical artefacts, it is problematic when applied to the digital world. Physical artefacts must be placed in one and only one place whereas digital information can exist simultaneously in many places. Metadata about physical artefacts is owned by experts and/or the owner/manager of the artefact whereas metadata about digital information has become democratized to any user (e.g. linking, tagging, commenting). Furthermore, metadata about a digital artefact and the data of the artefact itself are now indistinguishable. The full set of digital information (discussion threads, opinions, blog posts, linked/related information, contrasting ideas, etc) about a digital artefact becomes part of the full body of knowledge on that artefact. That is a core concept of the semantic web. For public sector organizations, this has presented a serious challenge as they have tried to adjust to digital information. The old file and record classification systems that have worked well for physical records don't work well in the digital age. Unfortunately most document management, records management and some other types of content management systems are predicated and structured on this kind of physical artefact world and are therefore not useful, by themselves, in managing digital information. That's where tagging, folksonomies and combinations like mashups (both user generated and automated) can play a significant, complementary role. Each has their particular strengths and weaknesses as shown in the following table. (table removed) There has been a longstanding gulf between proponents of the `controlled vocabulary' world and the Web 2.0 digital information world. Both are necessary in modern organizations. An intelligent and integrated use of all three categories of KOS noted above clearly represents a best practice approach. The design of such integration requires balance between the structured and unstructured vocabulary worlds. The most likely combinations from which to choose are: co-existence of both taxonomies and tagging; tag-influenced taxonomy: taxonomy-influenced tagging; and tag hierarchies. Across the web taxonomy-influenced tagging has found early traction, whereas organizations often start with simple co-existence in order to gain experience with these two different approaches before deciding on a further integration path." Hope this helps. Paul
|
|
|
|
Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
Tom –
I think that starting from an MIS architecture is an excellent idea for the structured part of the construct. It integrates many of the single-purpose architectures that I’ve come across and, since it’s been around for a while, there are plenty of examples available. It also provides a framework for identifying parallel processes in an unstructured world.
Thanks.
Al
From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of TRflanagan@...
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:19 PM To: sikmleaders@... Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Knowledge Architecture
Al
The list of five components of knowledge architecture which you offer us parallels ... hardware, software, data, procedures, people ... which is a model of management information systems in business course texts. Perhaps considering both lists concurrently might enrich distinctions that you are seeking to explain. Cheers; Tom
In a message dated 6/1/2011 1:08:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, albert.simard@... writes:
|
|
|
|
Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
Stephen -
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
What you say makes sense. Regardless of the top-level structure, I see data, information, and knowledge processes as technical functions that support something larger. The problem identification part incorporates elements of a modeling framework that I developed for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which began with identifying and classifying the problem (using Snowden's framework). It then went on to consider data and knowledge needs and availability which helped to answer the question "to model or not to model" and if the former, what approach to use. After development and validation were completed, there was a process for organizational approval and use. All of which ultimately supported a business problem of regulating something related to food, animal, or plant health or safety. I hadn't thought of using ideas from that framework in this context! Ultimately, a business approach may be the most saleable at the executive level. Thanks one & all. Lots of great ideas. Now it's time to put pen to paper. (I still think in ancient ways before putting fingers to mouse & keyboard.) Al
-----Original Message-----
From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Bounds Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 6:15 PM To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Knowledge Architecture Hi Albert, Ah, I sympathize with you -- that's a difficult challenge! I don't think it's an accident that Cynefin was developed while Dave S worked at IBM. It's most valuable aspect is as a sales tool for people used to structured management thinking. Cynefin takes people on a mental journey from Simple and Complicated ("stuff you understand how to manage") to Complex and Chaotic ("and here's where your normal rules break down"). You explained some of your thinking in another email: At this time I will probably use five views ... people (individuals,I can see this working, but this approach tends to separate KM from the actual "work" of the business. I always feel that KM works best when people understand how it fits into "real work". I have a generic model I use for representing the problem solving process (eg see http://bounds.net.au/node/58) which could be shoehorned into an architecture if required: organisation governance problem identification knowledge processes information processes business processes Just a thought -- happy to discuss further if you're interested. Cheers, -- Stephen.
|
|
|
|
Nerida Hart
Hi Albert
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
A good way of describing why a KM architecture is not a structured thing is to put it in the context of having an architecture for human behaviour - it is just not going to work. KM is NOT IM - yes they blend at the edges but they are definitely not the same thing - knowledge management is human dependent. Hope this makes sense Nerida
On 2 June 2011 03:33, Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...> wrote:
--
Nerida Hart HartKnowledge Consulting PO Box 483 Queanbeyan NSW 2620 Phone +61 418 423 270 Skype neridahartau Twitter neridahart Web http://hartknowledge.wordpress.com Sorry to tell you this, but whether you agree or disagree, one day you are going to die. Stop procrastinating (Paul Coelho). Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. (Mark Twain) Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together. ~ Vincent van Gogh Only you can make you happy. Aaron "Marty" Martinson
|
|
|
|
Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
Hello,
I think that the term "knowledge architect" is in far greater use in the US than in Australia. I would also note that even "information architect" is a somewhat contested role - see Patrick's post on the Forrester article that caused a commotion in the US a while back: http://www.greenchameleon.com/gc/blog_detail/where_are_the_people_in_km_ia Here is Australia, public discussion around IA tends to have a strong UX flavour (the "web weenie" wing if you will) rather than playing as a subdivision of enterprise architecture. I don't especially like the term "knowledge architect". I think that ontologies and taxonomies (or KOS if you prefer*) are often important, valid and valuable things for organisations to create and manage but, as others have noted, there are critical aspects of organisational knowledge that they don't model well. That said, if a client really wants to call their taxonomy a "knowledge architecture", I'm rarely in the mood to engage in a sustained argument with them. Cheers, Matt *The books by Patrick Lambe, Heather Hedden & Darin Stewart are good places to start BTW and there's a growing additional literature on this topic (e.g. the material from Joseph Busch, Earley & Associates, and the UK arm of ISKO).
|
|
|
|
TRflanagan@...
IM systems are human systems too. It is impossible to design
and launch an IM effort without human engagement. I accept that there are
differences, but not at the level of the presence or absence of the human
element.
Tom
|
|
|
|
Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
Nerida –
Yes it does and I like the analogy. Thanks
Al
From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Nerida Hart
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:13 PM To: sikmleaders@... Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Knowledge Architecture
Hi Albert On 2 June 2011 03:33, Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...> wrote:
Right on, Stephen.
|
|
|
|
Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
Good point, Tom.
In fact, all good systems have to address the human element to an increasing degree, from data (user-centric interfaces), through information (simple processes for capture, search, and retrieval), to knowledge (people as the central processor).
Al
From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of TRflanagan@...
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 10:48 AM To: sikmleaders@... Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Knowledge Architecture
IM systems are human systems too. It is impossible to design and launch an IM effort without human engagement. I accept that there are differences, but not at the level of the presence or absence of the human element.
Tom
.
|
|
|
|
Murray Jennex
I'm getting a little confused with the discussion, don't we have people
architectures called culture? It seems to me that is what culture really
is, is a human architecture. As to not being able to create a KM
architecture, just because it is difficult doesn't mean we can't do it or
shouldn't do it, this is an area for research and it will be difficult but it
seems worthwhile. I do agree what we all call architecture seems to be
inconsistent and our ontology on the topic is not agreed upon. My
understanding of architecture is as a series of views, a technical view, a
management view, a user view, a knowledge view, perhaps a few more. Is
this where we've headed with the architecture discussion? thanks....murray
jennex
In a message dated 6/3/2011 8:24:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
albert.simard@... writes:
|
|
|