Rethinking KM #definition #periodicals


Randhir Pushpa
 

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)
- The disruptive power of KM
- The new way of working

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

Regards

Dr. Randhir Pushpa


Randhir Pushpa
 
Edited

Hi,
 
I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.
My main inferences are:
 
Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM
Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected
Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing
 
If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.
 
Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.
 
Regards
 
Randhir

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:
KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.
 
There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.
 
From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.
 
In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about
 
- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)
- The disruptive power of KM
- The new way of working
 
I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.
 
Regards
 
Dr. Randhir Pushpa


Arthur Shelley
 

Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 


Howie Cohen
 

Randhir, 

              I would agree with Arthur.  I have hundreds of documents and artifacts discussing KM but more often than not these touch on intangible concepts but focus more on tangible.   As a practice leader in a large organization, I understand why this happens but it does leave a gap.   There is a natural order to how people / humans function and behave but humanity doesn't really convey well to large business.   How many organizational or industrial psychologists are on staff at most large companies?  Is the human resource department about "being human" or about managing personnel?   When it comes to knowledge in an organization, we have a crew change problem that is causing a problem in companies across the globe .  Many leaders know that crew change is a problem but the costs in the short term overwhelm their senses and they can't see the larger picture / value.  The fact that large companies are well aware of the problems and seem stymied is perplexing.  That being the case, I have leveraged this group and others to build a more diversified practice towards solving these challenges. 

There are two basic approaches to my knowledge practice, the first is to find ways to measure everything.  What is the value of a hug?  We look to find a business value, impact and indication for that.    The second is to wrap as many intangible practices into tangible as possible.  For example, we leverage "working out loud" as a corporate practice and we build stories from the actions and activities performed in that practice but we are aware of and we encourage the human factors.  I meet with our innovation officer, information officer and our human resource chief on a monthly basis to keep all parties informed and course correct as needed.   Research doesn't generally document this kind of practice. 

Best, 
Howie  

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 



Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Howard and Randhir,

I'm very pleased to hear your discussions in support of a broader, evidence-based approach to knowledge management.

I have long felt the same way. To try and help shift the debate, Bruce Boyes and I have just launched RealKM magazine (realkm.com) as a way to encourage knowledge and discussion about the findings of high-value knowledge management research in concise, practically-oriented articles. Here's a few examples of recently published articles:

  How Machiavellians affect organisations
  The network science of career success
  Out of the box ideas need a familiar framework for acceptance

It's very important to me that we explore findings from both within and outside KM, including disciplines such as communications, marketing, psychology, biology, sociology, and management research. I would love people on this list and elsewhere to check it out and to join the debate on how to ensure we have more practical and productive discussions on KM going forward.

Randhir: More practically, would you mind if I published an article about your summarisation of research? Or would you like to expand on what you've found for an article on RealKM? I think it's an important piece of the puzzle.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/10/2015 11:33 PM, Howard Cohen howardscohenmba@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 
Randhir, 

              I would agree with Arthur.  I have hundreds of documents and artifacts discussing KM but more often than not these touch on intangible concepts but focus more on tangible.   As a practice leader in a large organization, I understand why this happens but it does leave a gap.   There is a natural order to how people / humans function and behave but humanity doesn't really convey well to large business.   How many organizational or industrial psychologists are on staff at most large companies?  Is the human resource department about "being human" or about managing personnel?   When it comes to knowledge in an organization, we have a crew change problem that is causing a problem in companies across the globe .  Many leaders know that crew change is a problem but the costs in the short term overwhelm their senses and they can't see the larger picture / value.  The fact that large companies are well aware of the problems and seem stymied is perplexing.  That being the case, I have leveraged this group and others to build a more diversified practice towards solving these challenges. 

There are two basic approaches to my knowledge practice, the first is to find ways to measure everything.  What is the value of a hug?  We look to find a business value, impact and indication for that.    The second is to wrap as many intangible practices into tangible as possible.  For example, we leverage "working out loud" as a corporate practice and we build stories from the actions and activities performed in that practice but we are aware of and we encourage the human factors.  I meet with our innovation officer, information officer and our human resource chief on a monthly basis to keep all parties informed and course correct as needed.   Research doesn't generally document this kind of practice. 

Best, 
Howie  

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 




Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Arthur/Howard/Stephen,

Thank you for the pretty interesting view points that you shared. From the responses I understand that their is life beyond knowledge as an Object. For KM to be a horizontal function in its true sense this is very important. 

Treating Knowledge as an object (and the consequence practices) is a comfort zone not only for researchers KM practitioners but also for other functions of the organization. The moment focus and definition of Knowledge goes beyond as an object it starts touching other functions and also leads to turf war.

For example: Take the case of lessons learned and best practices. When it is practiced in a reactive way, the focus is on Knowledge as an object. The subsequent practices would be capturing the lessons learned and best practices, updating that in a database and making it available through web-enabled mediums for users. In a proactive approach the definition of knowledge changes that to a process (embedded knowledge). What is learned and the best practices then gets ploughed back into 'continuous improvement'. The focus of KM practice then becomes capturing the lessons learned and fine tuning the existing process with the new learning and improving it further. The moment that happens KM enters the domain of quality and process functions. Same is the case when 'Knowledge sharing and collaboration' is moved from reactive to proactive. KM enters the domain of Training and Development function.

To understand, appreciate and allow KM in its true sense to impact the organization, there is a need to re-look into the definition of 'Organization and organizing' and what is required for 'Organization and organizing' to be a success. In a nut shell KM function is disruptive.

Regards

Randhir


On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hi Howard and Randhir,

I'm very pleased to hear your discussions in support of a broader, evidence-based approach to knowledge management.

I have long felt the same way. To try and help shift the debate, Bruce Boyes and I have just launched RealKM magazine (realkm.com) as a way to encourage knowledge and discussion about the findings of high-value knowledge management research in concise, practically-oriented articles. Here's a few examples of recently published articles:

  How Machiavellians affect organisations
  The network science of career success
  Out of the box ideas need a familiar framework for acceptance

It's very important to me that we explore findings from both within and outside KM, including disciplines such as communications, marketing, psychology, biology, sociology, and management research. I would love people on this list and elsewhere to check it out and to join the debate on how to ensure we have more practical and productive discussions on KM going forward.

Randhir: More practically, would you mind if I published an article about your summarisation of research? Or would you like to expand on what you've found for an article on RealKM? I think it's an important piece of the puzzle.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/10/2015 11:33 PM, Howard Cohen howardscohenmba@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
 
Randhir, 

              I would agree with Arthur.  I have hundreds of documents and artifacts discussing KM but more often than not these touch on intangible concepts but focus more on tangible.   As a practice leader in a large organization, I understand why this happens but it does leave a gap.   There is a natural order to how people / humans function and behave but humanity doesn't really convey well to large business.   How many organizational or industrial psychologists are on staff at most large companies?  Is the human resource department about "being human" or about managing personnel?   When it comes to knowledge in an organization, we have a crew change problem that is causing a problem in companies across the globe .  Many leaders know that crew change is a problem but the costs in the short term overwhelm their senses and they can't see the larger picture / value.  The fact that large companies are well aware of the problems and seem stymied is perplexing.  That being the case, I have leveraged this group and others to build a more diversified practice towards solving these challenges. 

There are two basic approaches to my knowledge practice, the first is to find ways to measure everything.  What is the value of a hug?  We look to find a business value, impact and indication for that.    The second is to wrap as many intangible practices into tangible as possible.  For example, we leverage "working out loud" as a corporate practice and we build stories from the actions and activities performed in that practice but we are aware of and we encourage the human factors.  I meet with our innovation officer, information officer and our human resource chief on a monthly basis to keep all parties informed and course correct as needed.   Research doesn't generally document this kind of practice. 

Best, 
Howie  

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 





Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Howard,

The two approaches that you mentioned makes sense. Regarding KM measurement: I feel it should be business aligned. If I report on the number of downloads and uploads in intranet, it may be of interest to the CIO, but the CEO will be completely at loss. Measures taken should make sense to the top line and bottom line of business. As KM practitioners we tend to oppose these kinds of business oriented measures, but basically it also means we are digging failure. It is a tough pill to swallow.

Regards

Randhir

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Howard Cohen howardscohenmba@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Randhir, 

              I would agree with Arthur.  I have hundreds of documents and artifacts discussing KM but more often than not these touch on intangible concepts but focus more on tangible.   As a practice leader in a large organization, I understand why this happens but it does leave a gap.   There is a natural order to how people / humans function and behave but humanity doesn't really convey well to large business.   How many organizational or industrial psychologists are on staff at most large companies?  Is the human resource department about "being human" or about managing personnel?   When it comes to knowledge in an organization, we have a crew change problem that is causing a problem in companies across the globe .  Many leaders know that crew change is a problem but the costs in the short term overwhelm their senses and they can't see the larger picture / value.  The fact that large companies are well aware of the problems and seem stymied is perplexing.  That being the case, I have leveraged this group and others to build a more diversified practice towards solving these challenges. 

There are two basic approaches to my knowledge practice, the first is to find ways to measure everything.  What is the value of a hug?  We look to find a business value, impact and indication for that.    The second is to wrap as many intangible practices into tangible as possible.  For example, we leverage "working out loud" as a corporate practice and we build stories from the actions and activities performed in that practice but we are aware of and we encourage the human factors.  I meet with our innovation officer, information officer and our human resource chief on a monthly basis to keep all parties informed and course correct as needed.   Research doesn't generally document this kind of practice. 

Best, 
Howie  

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 




Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Stephen,

Browsed through 'realkm.com', it has got some good content. Thank for including 'Systems Thinking' also as part of it. From my understanding, Systems Thinking and KM has quite a lot of synergy between them and for KM to grow in an organization, Systems thinking will play an important role.

Please do use the short summarization I published. 

Regards

Randhir

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hi Howard and Randhir,

I'm very pleased to hear your discussions in support of a broader, evidence-based approach to knowledge management.

I have long felt the same way. To try and help shift the debate, Bruce Boyes and I have just launched RealKM magazine (realkm.com) as a way to encourage knowledge and discussion about the findings of high-value knowledge management research in concise, practically-oriented articles. Here's a few examples of recently published articles:

  How Machiavellians affect organisations
  The network science of career success
  Out of the box ideas need a familiar framework for acceptance

It's very important to me that we explore findings from both within and outside KM, including disciplines such as communications, marketing, psychology, biology, sociology, and management research. I would love people on this list and elsewhere to check it out and to join the debate on how to ensure we have more practical and productive discussions on KM going forward.

Randhir: More practically, would you mind if I published an article about your summarisation of research? Or would you like to expand on what you've found for an article on RealKM? I think it's an important piece of the puzzle.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/10/2015 11:33 PM, Howard Cohen howardscohenmba@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
 
Randhir, 

              I would agree with Arthur.  I have hundreds of documents and artifacts discussing KM but more often than not these touch on intangible concepts but focus more on tangible.   As a practice leader in a large organization, I understand why this happens but it does leave a gap.   There is a natural order to how people / humans function and behave but humanity doesn't really convey well to large business.   How many organizational or industrial psychologists are on staff at most large companies?  Is the human resource department about "being human" or about managing personnel?   When it comes to knowledge in an organization, we have a crew change problem that is causing a problem in companies across the globe .  Many leaders know that crew change is a problem but the costs in the short term overwhelm their senses and they can't see the larger picture / value.  The fact that large companies are well aware of the problems and seem stymied is perplexing.  That being the case, I have leveraged this group and others to build a more diversified practice towards solving these challenges. 

There are two basic approaches to my knowledge practice, the first is to find ways to measure everything.  What is the value of a hug?  We look to find a business value, impact and indication for that.    The second is to wrap as many intangible practices into tangible as possible.  For example, we leverage "working out loud" as a corporate practice and we build stories from the actions and activities performed in that practice but we are aware of and we encourage the human factors.  I meet with our innovation officer, information officer and our human resource chief on a monthly basis to keep all parties informed and course correct as needed.   Research doesn't generally document this kind of practice. 

Best, 
Howie  

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 





Murray Jennex
 

I have to totally disagree.  I'm the editor of chief of the International Journal of Knowledge Management and the Track co-chair of the Knowledge, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Systems Track at the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences and I have two minitracks on knowledge flows and knowledge sharing as well as a minitrack on social media in KM, plus about half the articles I publish in the journal are researching how knowledge flows between individuals and in an organization.  I would say KM research is half focused on technology and half on the people/flow issues.  Researchers use action research extensively as well as other soft methodologies and they look at real organizations.  I would guess you'all are looking at the high end IS research journals that love quantitative research and not the 20 plus KM journals that look at all the issues.  Thanks...murray
 

In a message dated 10/4/2015 4:52:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@... writes:


Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 


Murray Jennex
 

To expand a little further, KM researchers are looking at intangibles and softer issues as well as the harder tangible issues.  The issue I see is that top research journals favor and reward the hard tangible issues just like organizations favor that which they can measure.  I think managers want hard answers and don't like soft answers.  All that said, KM research from what I see is 50/50 between hard and soft issues, you just have to look in the right places to find it...murray
 

In a message dated 10/4/2015 8:50:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@... writes:


I have to totally disagree.  I'm the editor of chief of the International Journal of Knowledge Management and the Track co-chair of the Knowledge, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Systems Track at the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences and I have two minitracks on knowledge flows and knowledge sharing as well as a minitrack on social media in KM, plus about half the articles I publish in the journal are researching how knowledge flows between individuals and in an organization.  I would say KM research is half focused on technology and half on the people/flow issues.  Researchers use action research extensively as well as other soft methodologies and they look at real organizations.  I would guess you'all are looking at the high end IS research journals that love quantitative research and not the 20 plus KM journals that look at all the issues.  Thanks...murray
 
In a message dated 10/4/2015 4:52:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@... writes:


Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 


Arthur Shelley
 

Murray,

 

I think we are furiously agreeing on some aspects of his based on similar observations.  I congratulate you and your journal for publishing qualitative papers and supporting action research and soft capabilities research. Perhaps I should get my students to send their papers your way.

 

However, we all know that the majority of “top journals” are not that interested in this work, perceiving it to be “less robust and therefore of less value than qualitative” The problem is exacerbated as academics get promoted faster based on research published in “top journals”. I don’t agree with this – good research is good research (I actually prefer mixed methods as this incorporates insights for multiple perspectives to triangulate the data).

 

I do peer reviews for three journals, all of which are open to qualitative.  My original background was highly quantitative science and I realised that when scientists believe they are “controlling” the experiment, mostly they are not.   The concept that everything comes back to cause and effect that can be predicted and measured simply is a poor assumption in human social systems.  The original post highlighted the bias in what gets published and perhaps with some wider searching there are more journals with more qualitative, but we are  a long way for balancing the message. 

From the business side it is hard to sell soft options too, but the intangibles can be measured indirectly and converted back to value (I have done this many times with good influence in commercial situation - but I am sure that the journals would not see it as publishable).  This is why a majority of practitioners (I consider myself a hybrid) don’t bother with the academic literature and academics don’t bother with the practitioner literature (I have a chapter about the power of opportunities to cross fertilise between the two this in my forthcoming book).

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2015 3:08 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM

 

 

To expand a little further, KM researchers are looking at intangibles and softer issues as well as the harder tangible issues.  The issue I see is that top research journals favor and reward the hard tangible issues just like organizations favor that which they can measure.  I think managers want hard answers and don't like soft answers.  All that said, KM research from what I see is 50/50 between hard and soft issues, you just have to look in the right places to find it...murray

 

In a message dated 10/4/2015 8:50:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@... writes:




I have to totally disagree.  I'm the editor of chief of the International Journal of Knowledge Management and the Track co-chair of the Knowledge, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Systems Track at the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences and I have two minitracks on knowledge flows and knowledge sharing as well as a minitrack on social media in KM, plus about half the articles I publish in the journal are researching how knowledge flows between individuals and in an organization.  I would say KM research is half focused on technology and half on the people/flow issues.  Researchers use action research extensively as well as other soft methodologies and they look at real organizations.  I would guess you'all are looking at the high end IS research journals that love quantitative research and not the 20 plus KM journals that look at all the issues.  Thanks...murray

 

In a message dated 10/4/2015 4:52:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@... writes:




Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 


Murray Jennex
 

Arthur,
 
We really do agree on the top journals bias on methodology, I've rejected several summary articles because the authors thought it only appropriate to look at KM in the top journals and ignore the 20+ KM journals.  It is an unacceptable bias.  My rule on methods is you can do whatever method you want as long as it is appropriate to the research aim and the method is done rigorously and well (this is how I judge quality research).  I usually encourage authors not to call their methodology mixed methods as my read on methodology is that most all methods allow qualitative and quantitative measures so don't really need to call it mixed (my experience is that publishers don't know what mixed is).
 
Additionally, I also am a practitioner turned academic having spent 20 years as an engineer in the commercial nuclear industry.
 
I have been fortunate in that I have been able to make full professor by convincing my college and colleagues that KM is its own socio-technical discipline that requires a variety of research methods.
 
Of course I've also had to demonstrate my ability to do solid quantitative work and have a paper coming out where we used quantitative methods to confirm measures of KM success, even though they make good sense through other methods I still have to do the stats on occasion. 
 
I have found it humorous how often business falls for the hard measures salespeople only to discover that the measures don't always apply and a soft approach is needed to adapt them.
 
For what its worth, I did a talk at ACKMIDS a few years ago on bridging the difference between doing and knowing and have been a writer in the research relevance debate, pointing out you get what you reward so if you want research relevant to business you need to use methodologies that go deep into understanding business.
 
My real point is that the KM journals do tend to support action research and soft methods research while the top tier IS journals do not.  We just need to convince business to read the KM journals and not the top tier IS journals.....murray
 

In a message dated 10/5/2015 1:54:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@... writes:


Murray,

 

I think we are furiously agreeing on some aspects of his based on similar observations.  I congratulate you and your journal for publishing qualitative papers and supporting action research and soft capabilities research. Perhaps I should get my students to send their papers your way.

 

However, we all know that the majority of “top journals” are not that interested in this work, perceiving it to be “less robust and therefore of less value than qualitative” The problem is exacerbated as academics get promoted faster based on research published in “top journals”. I don’t agree with this – good research is good research (I actually prefer mixed methods as this incorporates insights for multiple perspectives to triangulate the data).

 

I do peer reviews for three journals, all of which are open to qualitative.  My original background was highly quantitative science and I realised that when scientists believe they are “controlling” the experiment, mostly they are not.   The concept that everything comes back to cause and effect that can be predicted and measured simply is a poor assumption in human social systems.  The original post highlighted the bias in what gets published and perhaps with some wider searching there are more journals with more qualitative, but we are  a long way for balancing the message. 

From the business side it is hard to sell soft options too, but the intangibles can be measured indirectly and converted back to value (I have done this many times with good influence in commercial situation - but I am sure that the journals would not see it as publishable).  This is why a majority of practitioners (I consider myself a hybrid) don’t bother with the academic literature and academics don’t bother with the practitioner literature (I have a chapter about the power of opportunities to cross fertilise between the two this in my forthcoming book).

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2015 3:08 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM

 

 

To expand a little further, KM researchers are looking at intangibles and softer issues as well as the harder tangible issues.  The issue I see is that top research journals favor and reward the hard tangible issues just like organizations favor that which they can measure.  I think managers want hard answers and don't like soft answers.  All that said, KM research from what I see is 50/50 between hard and soft issues, you just have to look in the right places to find it...murray

 

In a message dated 10/4/2015 8:50:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@... writes:




I have to totally disagree.  I'm the editor of chief of the International Journal of Knowledge Management and the Track co-chair of the Knowledge, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Systems Track at the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences and I have two minitracks on knowledge flows and knowledge sharing as well as a minitrack on social media in KM, plus about half the articles I publish in the journal are researching how knowledge flows between individuals and in an organization.  I would say KM research is half focused on technology and half on the people/flow issues.  Researchers use action research extensively as well as other soft methodologies and they look at real organizations.  I would guess you'all are looking at the high end IS research journals that love quantitative research and not the 20 plus KM journals that look at all the issues.  Thanks...murray

 

In a message dated 10/4/2015 4:52:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@... writes:




Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 


Arthur Shelley
 

Howard, Murray and Randhir,

 

For the last 10 years I have facilitated workshops on behavioural interactions using creative metaphor and other knowledge-based divergent techniques to enhance innovation and performance. These have made a significant difference to the tangible outputs and the intangible outcomes of the teams and organisation they have been facilitated with. At Cadbury, we documented dozens of cases that generated tangible value with high ROI. We explore the co-creation of knowledge and insights that the participants generate actionable items from.  I don’t publish these because the organisations want to maintain their competitive advantage or sometimes the management simply don’t want to release them.

 

More recently I have done some of these workshop activities for NASA, World Bank and Singapore Government amongst others with good outcomes, which I have not yet had time to document.  I share many of the insights generically on my blog, but have also published several academic articles on how and why these exploratory interventions work to drive innovation and performance.   I am happy to share these articles on a one on one basis, or if you to have access to academic articles, I have included some references here (sharing, not self-promoting – hope you find them useful. I would love to attach them, but this would breach copyright).

 

Academic journal articles:

 

SHELLEY, AW (2015) Project Management and Leadership Education Facilitated as Projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Volume 8 (3) 478-490.  

SHELLEY, AW (2014) Active Learning Innovations in Knowledge Management Education Generate Higher Quality Learning Outcomes. Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Innovation (JEMI), Volume 10 (1) 129-145. 

SHELLEY, AW (2014) Action Research: Creative metaphor to build relationships in projects. Sage Research Cases in Methodology. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305013503436

SHELLEY, AW & MAQSOOD, T (2014) Metaphor Interactions to Develop Team Relationships and robustness Enhance Project Outcomes. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Volume 7, 4, 752-766. 

SHELLEY, AW (2012) Metaphor Interactions to Develop Team Relationships and Robustness Enhance Project Outcomes. Project Management Journal 43, 6, 88-96 

SHELLEY, AW (2011) Metaphor as an effective means to stimulate constructive conversations on project culture and performance. European Academy of Management Doctorial Colloquium, Tallinn, Estonia. 

SHELLEY, AW (2008) Knowledge Frameworks for enhanced performance. A practitioners workbook. Intelligent Answers. Melbourne, Australia. 

WALKER, DHT, BOURNE, LM, and SHELLEY AW (2008), Influence, Stakeholder Mapping and Visualisation, Construction Management and Economics, 26, 6, 645-658

 

Practitioner books and chapters:

 

SHELLEY, AW (2013) 12 Principles of knowledge leadership. Opening chapter in Roche, H Successful knowledge leadership: Principles and practice, ARK Publishing, London.  pp. 1-6. 

SHELLEY, AW (2012) Stories stimulate knowledge management activity in your organisation. Case Study 8 in Hawley, T Making knowledge management work in your organisation, ARK Publishing, London.  pp. 135-141. 

SHELLEY, AW (2012) Metaphor as a means to constructively influence behavioural interactions in project teams. PhD Thesis PCPM, RMIT University 

SHELLEY, AW (2011) Creative metaphor as a tool for stakeholder influence. Chapter in: Bourne, L, Advising Upwards, Helping management to help you. Gower Publishing. 

SHELLEY, AW (2009) Being a Successful Knowledge Leader. What knowledge practitioners need to know to make a difference. ARK Publishing. UK. 

SHELLEY, AW (2007) Knowledge Disrupters in Mergers and Acquisitions.  Chapter 3, Next Generation Knowledge Management III, Ed.  Jerry Ash ARK Group. 

SHELLEY, AW (2007) The Organizational Zoo, A Survival Guide to Workplace Behavior.  Aslan Publishing, Fairfield, Connecticut. 

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2015 12:06 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM

 

 

Hi Howard,

 

The two approaches that you mentioned makes sense. Regarding KM measurement: I feel it should be business aligned. If I report on the number of downloads and uploads in intranet, it may be of interest to the CIO, but the CEO will be completely at loss. Measures taken should make sense to the top line and bottom line of business. As KM practitioners we tend to oppose these kinds of business oriented measures, but basically it also means we are digging failure. It is a tough pill to swallow.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Howard Cohen howardscohenmba@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

Randhir, 

 

              I would agree with Arthur.  I have hundreds of documents and artifacts discussing KM but more often than not these touch on intangible concepts but focus more on tangible.   As a practice leader in a large organization, I understand why this happens but it does leave a gap.   There is a natural order to how people / humans function and behave but humanity doesn't really convey well to large business.   How many organizational or industrial psychologists are on staff at most large companies?  Is the human resource department about "being human" or about managing personnel?   When it comes to knowledge in an organization, we have a crew change problem that is causing a problem in companies across the globe .  Many leaders know that crew change is a problem but the costs in the short term overwhelm their senses and they can't see the larger picture / value.  The fact that large companies are well aware of the problems and seem stymied is perplexing.  That being the case, I have leveraged this group and others to build a more diversified practice towards solving these challenges. 

 

There are two basic approaches to my knowledge practice, the first is to find ways to measure everything.  What is the value of a hug?  We look to find a business value, impact and indication for that.    The second is to wrap as many intangible practices into tangible as possible.  For example, we leverage "working out loud" as a corporate practice and we build stories from the actions and activities performed in that practice but we are aware of and we encourage the human factors.  I meet with our innovation officer, information officer and our human resource chief on a monthly basis to keep all parties informed and course correct as needed.   Research doesn't generally document this kind of practice. 

 

Best, 

Howie  

 

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 

 

 


Arthur Shelley
 

Yes Randhir,

 

Disruptive …

and in being so (when well facilitated) drives innovation, creativity, adaptability and develops capabilities for future sustained performance.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2015 12:01 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM

 

 

Hi Arthur/Howard/Stephen,

 

Thank you for the pretty interesting view points that you shared. From the responses I understand that their is life beyond knowledge as an Object. For KM to be a horizontal function in its true sense this is very important. 

 

Treating Knowledge as an object (and the consequence practices) is a comfort zone not only for researchers KM practitioners but also for other functions of the organization. The moment focus and definition of Knowledge goes beyond as an object it starts touching other functions and also leads to turf war.

 

For example: Take the case of lessons learned and best practices. When it is practiced in a reactive way, the focus is on Knowledge as an object. The subsequent practices would be capturing the lessons learned and best practices, updating that in a database and making it available through web-enabled mediums for users. In a proactive approach the definition of knowledge changes that to a process (embedded knowledge). What is learned and the best practices then gets ploughed back into 'continuous improvement'. The focus of KM practice then becomes capturing the lessons learned and fine tuning the existing process with the new learning and improving it further. The moment that happens KM enters the domain of quality and process functions. Same is the case when 'Knowledge sharing and collaboration' is moved from reactive to proactive. KM enters the domain of Training and Development function.

 

To understand, appreciate and allow KM in its true sense to impact the organization, there is a need to re-look into the definition of 'Organization and organizing' and what is required for 'Organization and organizing' to be a success. In a nut shell KM function is disruptive.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

 

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

Hi Howard and Randhir,

I'm very pleased to hear your discussions in support of a broader, evidence-based approach to knowledge management.

I have long felt the same way. To try and help shift the debate, Bruce Boyes and I have just launched RealKM magazine (realkm.com) as a way to encourage knowledge and discussion about the findings of high-value knowledge management research in concise, practically-oriented articles. Here's a few examples of recently published articles:

  How Machiavellians affect organisations
  The network science of career success
  Out of the box ideas need a familiar framework for acceptance

It's very important to me that we explore findings from both within and outside KM, including disciplines such as communications, marketing, psychology, biology, sociology, and management research. I would love people on this list and elsewhere to check it out and to join the debate on how to ensure we have more practical and productive discussions on KM going forward.

Randhir: More practically, would you mind if I published an article about your summarisation of research? Or would you like to expand on what you've found for an article on RealKM? I think it's an important piece of the puzzle.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/10/2015 11:33 PM, Howard Cohen howardscohenmba@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

Randhir, 

 

              I would agree with Arthur.  I have hundreds of documents and artifacts discussing KM but more often than not these touch on intangible concepts but focus more on tangible.   As a practice leader in a large organization, I understand why this happens but it does leave a gap.   There is a natural order to how people / humans function and behave but humanity doesn't really convey well to large business.   How many organizational or industrial psychologists are on staff at most large companies?  Is the human resource department about "being human" or about managing personnel?   When it comes to knowledge in an organization, we have a crew change problem that is causing a problem in companies across the globe .  Many leaders know that crew change is a problem but the costs in the short term overwhelm their senses and they can't see the larger picture / value.  The fact that large companies are well aware of the problems and seem stymied is perplexing.  That being the case, I have leveraged this group and others to build a more diversified practice towards solving these challenges. 

 

There are two basic approaches to my knowledge practice, the first is to find ways to measure everything.  What is the value of a hug?  We look to find a business value, impact and indication for that.    The second is to wrap as many intangible practices into tangible as possible.  For example, we leverage "working out loud" as a corporate practice and we build stories from the actions and activities performed in that practice but we are aware of and we encourage the human factors.  I meet with our innovation officer, information officer and our human resource chief on a monthly basis to keep all parties informed and course correct as needed.   Research doesn't generally document this kind of practice. 

 

Best, 

Howie  

 

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 

 

 

 


Arthur Shelley
 

Yes Murray,



We are in complete agreement on all of this.

As much as I like to take a contradictory position to enhance a good argument, one has to be sensible on occasion :)

This is why I read a range of materials across fields, disciplines and “levels” of journals. I wold love to read even more, but there is simply too much literature to be across it all. I think that part of the problem is people don’t have time to read much, especially on concepts out of their immediate line of sight and this unfortunately includes KM for many academics and practitioners alike.



I semi-retired so I would have more time to learn more and do less, but of course the two are inextricably linked. We learn best by doing and challenging ourselves to explore unfamiliar territories. However, in doing this we create new knowledge for ourselves and for those we interact with. This is why we benefit from exploring both quant and qual aspects of everything we do (life in itself is a reflective experiment, much of which we don’t understand unless we take the time to connect with the emergent patterns and waves we create). Humans as social creatures co-create knowledge best in social contexts that impact directly on what they are doing- the rest remains t hint he realm of theory for them. It is only once we apply what we know that we truly create (or destroy) value. Combining theoretical aspects and practical experiences of knowledge give us optimal outcomes, but to many people are too busy to invest the time to make sense of this to enhance their performance over time…

This is where the gold is, if only we had the time to prospect it better.



I am familiar with your journal and have referenced it and sent students to it for my Knowledge Driven Performance MBA course. They often refer to articles form it, so we make some progress as we influence business practitioners to leverage theoretical concepts to enhance their thinking and strategic planning.



Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408 Skype: Arthur.Shelley Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/>

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/blog>



From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2015 8:18 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM





Arthur,



We really do agree on the top journals bias on methodology, I've rejected several summary articles because the authors thought it only appropriate to look at KM in the top journals and ignore the 20+ KM journals. It is an unacceptable bias. My rule on methods is you can do whatever method you want as long as it is appropriate to the research aim and the method is done rigorously and well (this is how I judge quality research). I usually encourage authors not to call their methodology mixed methods as my read on methodology is that most all methods allow qualitative and quantitative measures so don't really need to call it mixed (my experience is that publishers don't know what mixed is).



Additionally, I also am a practitioner turned academic having spent 20 years as an engineer in the commercial nuclear industry.



I have been fortunate in that I have been able to make full professor by convincing my college and colleagues that KM is its own socio-technical discipline that requires a variety of research methods.



Of course I've also had to demonstrate my ability to do solid quantitative work and have a paper coming out where we used quantitative methods to confirm measures of KM success, even though they make good sense through other methods I still have to do the stats on occasion.



I have found it humorous how often business falls for the hard measures salespeople only to discover that the measures don't always apply and a soft approach is needed to adapt them.



For what its worth, I did a talk at ACKMIDS a few years ago on bridging the difference between doing and knowing and have been a writer in the research relevance debate, pointing out you get what you reward so if you want research relevant to business you need to use methodologies that go deep into understanding business.



My real point is that the KM journals do tend to support action research and soft methods research while the top tier IS journals do not. We just need to convince business to read the KM journals and not the top tier IS journals.....murray



In a message dated 10/5/2015 1:54:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> writes:






Murray,



I think we are furiously agreeing on some aspects of his based on similar observations. I congratulate you and your journal for publishing qualitative papers and supporting action research and soft capabilities research. Perhaps I should get my students to send their papers your way.



However, we all know that the majority of “top journals” are not that interested in this work, perceiving it to be “less robust and therefore of less value than qualitative” The problem is exacerbated as academics get promoted faster based on research published in “top journals”. I don’t agree with this – good research is good research (I actually prefer mixed methods as this incorporates insights for multiple perspectives to triangulate the data).



I do peer reviews for three journals, all of which are open to qualitative. My original background was highly quantitative science and I realised that when scientists believe they are “controlling” the experiment, mostly they are not. The concept that everything comes back to cause and effect that can be predicted and measured simply is a poor assumption in human social systems. The original post highlighted the bias in what gets published and perhaps with some wider searching there are more journals with more qualitative, but we are a long way for balancing the message.

From the business side it is hard to sell soft options too, but the intangibles can be measured indirectly and converted back to value (I have done this many times with good influence in commercial situation - but I am sure that the journals would not see it as publishable). This is why a majority of practitioners (I consider myself a hybrid) don’t bother with the academic literature and academics don’t bother with the practitioner literature (I have a chapter about the power of opportunities to cross fertilise between the two this in my forthcoming book).

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408 Skype: Arthur.Shelley Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/>

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/blog>



From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2015 3:08 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM





To expand a little further, KM researchers are looking at intangibles and softer issues as well as the harder tangible issues. The issue I see is that top research journals favor and reward the hard tangible issues just like organizations favor that which they can measure. I think managers want hard answers and don't like soft answers. All that said, KM research from what I see is 50/50 between hard and soft issues, you just have to look in the right places to find it...murray



In a message dated 10/4/2015 8:50:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> writes:







I have to totally disagree. I'm the editor of chief of the International Journal of Knowledge Management and the Track co-chair of the Knowledge, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Systems Track at the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences and I have two minitracks on knowledge flows and knowledge sharing as well as a minitrack on social media in KM, plus about half the articles I publish in the journal are researching how knowledge flows between individuals and in an organization. I would say KM research is half focused on technology and half on the people/flow issues. Researchers use action research extensively as well as other soft methodologies and they look at real organizations. I would guess you'all are looking at the high end IS research journals that love quantitative research and not the 20 plus KM journals that look at all the issues. Thanks...murray



In a message dated 10/4/2015 4:52:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> writes:







Randhir,



I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections. However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.



To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.



Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408 Skype: Arthur.Shelley Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/>

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/blog>



From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]





[ <mip://0e86b468/default.html#TopText> Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,



I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.



My main inferences are:



•Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

•Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

•Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing



If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.



Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.



Regards



Randhir



On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@gmail.com <mailto:randhir.rp@gmail.com> > wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.



There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.



From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning), knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.



In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about



- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working



I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.



Regards



Dr. Randhir Pushpa


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Randhir,

Agreed. But to be honest, if you're doing Knowledge Management and *not* going into other people's turf then I would question what you are doing.

Most likely it means that you have accepted the limitations of what KM can be based on your "home" business unit ... so a technology-based approach if you're part of IT, an asset-based approach if you're in Finance, a capability- or training-based approach if part of HR, a project-bounded approach if you're in the project management unit, or a team-based approach if you are doing KM inside a particular team.

It's a wasted opportunity because as Arthur says, it's the cross-fertilisation and rethinking of assumptions across boundaries that drives the real innovation.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@knowquestion.com.au
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 5/10/2015 8:51 PM, 'Arthur' arthur@organizationalzoo.com [sikmleaders] wrote:
Yes Randhir,

Disruptive …

and in being so (when well facilitated) drives innovation, creativity,
adaptability and develops capabilities for future sustained performance.

Regards

*/Arthur Shelley/*

Intelligent Answers

*Founder:*The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

*Author:*The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOW/ledge/ SUCCESS/ion/

*Mb.*+61 413 047 408 *Skype:* Arthur.Shelley *Twitter:* @Metaphorage

*LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168 *

*Free behavioural profiles:*www.organizationalzoo.com
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com/>

*Blog:*www.organizationalzoo.com/blog
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com/blog>

*From:*sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
*Sent:* Monday, 5 October 2015 12:01 PM
*To:* sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM

Hi Arthur/Howard/Stephen,

Thank you for the pretty interesting view points that you shared. From
the responses I understand that their is life beyond knowledge as an
Object. For KM to be a horizontal function in its true sense this is
very important.

Treating Knowledge as an object (and the consequence practices) is a
comfort zone not only for researchers KM practitioners but also for
other functions of the organization. The moment focus and definition of
Knowledge goes beyond as an object it starts touching other functions
and also leads to turf war.

For example: Take the case of lessons learned and best practices. When
it is practiced in a reactive way, the focus is on Knowledge as an
object. The subsequent practices would be capturing the lessons learned
and best practices, updating that in a database and making it available
through web-enabled mediums for users. In a proactive approach the
definition of knowledge changes that to a process (embedded knowledge).
What is learned and the best practices then gets ploughed back into
'continuous improvement'. The focus of KM practice then becomes
capturing the lessons learned and fine tuning the existing process with
the new learning and improving it further. The moment that happens KM
enters the domain of quality and process functions. Same is the case
when 'Knowledge sharing and collaboration' is moved from reactive to
proactive. KM enters the domain of Training and Development function.

To understand, appreciate and allow KM in its true sense to impact the
organization, there is a need to re-look into the definition of
'Organization and organizing' and what is required for 'Organization and
organizing' to be a success. In a nut shell KM function is disruptive.

Regards

Randhir

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au
<mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

Hi Howard and Randhir,

I'm very pleased to hear your discussions in support of a broader,
evidence-based approach to knowledge management.

I have long felt the same way. To try and help shift the debate,
Bruce Boyes and I have just launched RealKM magazine (realkm.com
<http://realkm.com>) as a way to encourage knowledge and discussion
about the findings of high-value knowledge management research in
concise, practically-oriented articles. Here's a few examples of
recently published articles:

How Machiavellians affect organisations
<http://realkm.com/2015/08/19/the-psychology-of-machiavellians-in-the-21st-century-jeffrey-braithwaite/>
The network science of career success
<http://realkm.com/2015/09/03/network-science-career-success/> Out
of the box ideas need a familiar framework for acceptance
<http://realkm.com/2015/10/02/ideas-from-outside-the-box-increases-impact/>

It's very important to me that we explore findings from both within
and outside KM, including disciplines such as communications,
marketing, psychology, biology, sociology, and management research.
I would love people on this list and elsewhere to check it out and
to join the debate on how to ensure we have more practical and
productive discussions on KM going forward.

*Randhir:* More practically, would you mind if I published an
article about your summarisation of research? Or would you like to
expand on what you've found for an article on RealKM? I think it's
an important piece of the puzzle.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================

Stephen Bounds

Director & Principal Consultant

knowquestion Pty Ltd

E:sb@knowquestion.com.au <mailto:sb@knowquestion.com.au>

M: 0401 829 096

====================================

On 4/10/2015 11:33 PM, Howard Cohen howardscohenmba@gmail.com
<mailto:howardscohenmba@gmail.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:

Randhir,

I would agree with Arthur. I have hundreds of
documents and artifacts discussing KM but more often than not
these touch on intangible concepts but focus more on tangible.
As a practice leader in a large organization, I understand why
this happens but it does leave a gap. There is a natural order
to how people / humans function and behave but humanity doesn't
really convey well to large business. How many organizational
or industrial psychologists are on staff at most large
companies? Is the human resource department about "being human"
or about managing personnel? When it comes to knowledge in an
organization, we have a crew change problem that is causing a
problem in companies across the globe . Many leaders know that
crew change is a problem but the costs in the short term
overwhelm their senses and they can't see the larger picture /
value. The fact that large companies are well aware of the
problems and seem stymied is perplexing. That being the case, I
have leveraged this group and others to build a more diversified
practice towards solving these challenges.

There are two basic approaches to my knowledge practice, the
first is to find ways to measure everything. What is the value
of a hug? We look to find a business value, impact and
indication for that. The second is to wrap as many intangible
practices into tangible as possible. For example, we leverage
"working out loud" as a corporate practice and we build stories
from the actions and activities performed in that practice but
we are aware of and we encourage the human factors. I meet with
our innovation officer, information officer and our human
resource chief on a monthly basis to keep all parties informed
and course correct as needed. Research doesn't generally
document this kind of practice.

Best,

Howie

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, 'Arthur'
arthur@organizationalzoo.com
<mailto:arthur@organizationalzoo.com> [sikmleaders]
<sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

Randhir,

I agree that the research literature is focused more of
Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.
However, there is a lot of practice that does not get
researched and published that shows the critical importance
of connections between people that stimulate the flow of
knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it
is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than
quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen
to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge
initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely
intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed
leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing,
engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition
etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible
complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design,
simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures,
policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really
happening, researchers would benefit from engaging in
action research studies and engage with the practitioners
making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this
is done commercially and insights into this are considered
knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights
don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the
literature bias.

Regards

*/Arthur Shelley/*

Intelligent Answers

*Founder:*The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

*Author:*The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful
Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOW/ledge/ SUCCESS/ion/

*Mb.*+61 413 047 408 <tel:%2B61%20413%20047%20408> *Skype:*
Arthur.Shelley *Twitter:* @Metaphorage

*LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168 *

*Free behavioural profiles:*www.organizationalzoo.com
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com/>

*Blog:*www.organizationalzoo.com/blog
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com/blog>

*From:*sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>]
*Sent:* Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
*To:* sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
*Subject:* [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

*[Attachment(s) <#15034c503185b3dd_15032b1f65895357_TopTe>
from Randhir R.P included below]*

Hi,

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on
papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I
considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

My main inferences are:

•Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge
sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

•Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an
object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared
and protected

•Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in
technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding
is missing

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other
functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly
that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

Regards

Randhir

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P
<randhir.rp@gmail.com <mailto:randhir.rp@gmail.com>> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been
their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it
is time for it to have a place of its own and clear
focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay
competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities
getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not
get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give
to the mother earth.

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and
collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one
that gets discussed the most. There are many more
practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double
loop learning), knowledge enabled process etc. I am
sure you will be add more to this.

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will
talk about

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners
(and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching
and as a result learn more about this subject whose
roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

Regards

Dr. Randhir Pushpa


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Murray,

While we're on the topic, what do you think is the best way to spread broader awareness of the contents of KM journals like yours, given that they are all but hidden from anyone without pretty deep pockets or else are already in academia?

Many others have noted the irony previously ...

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@knowquestion.com.au
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 5/10/2015 8:17 PM, murphjen@aol.com [sikmleaders] wrote:
Arthur,
We really do agree on the top journals bias on methodology, I've
rejected several summary articles because the authors thought it only
appropriate to look at KM in the top journals and ignore the 20+ KM
journals. It is an unacceptable bias. My rule on methods is you can do
whatever method you want as long as it is appropriate to the research
aim and the method is done rigorously and well (this is how I judge
quality research). I usually encourage authors not to call their
methodology mixed methods as my read on methodology is that most all
methods allow qualitative and quantitative measures so don't really need
to call it mixed (my experience is that publishers don't know what mixed
is).
Additionally, I also am a practitioner turned academic having spent 20
years as an engineer in the commercial nuclear industry.
I have been fortunate in that I have been able to make full professor by
convincing my college and colleagues that KM is its own socio-technical
discipline that requires a variety of research methods.
Of course I've also had to demonstrate my ability to do solid
quantitative work and have a paper coming out where we used quantitative
methods to confirm measures of KM success, even though they make good
sense through other methods I still have to do the stats on occasion.
I have found it humorous how often business falls for the hard measures
salespeople only to discover that the measures don't always apply and a
soft approach is needed to adapt them.
For what its worth, I did a talk at ACKMIDS a few years ago on bridging
the difference between doing and knowing and have been a writer in the
research relevance debate, pointing out you get what you reward so if
you want research relevant to business you need to use methodologies
that go deep into understanding business.
My real point is that the KM journals do tend to support action research
and soft methods research while the top tier IS journals do not. We
just need to convince business to read the KM journals and not the top
tier IS journals.....murray
In a message dated 10/5/2015 1:54:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com writes:



Murray,

I think we are furiously agreeing on some aspects of his based on
similar observations. I congratulate you and your journal for
publishing qualitative papers and supporting action research and
soft capabilities research. Perhaps I should get my students to send
their papers your way.

However, we all know that the majority of “top journals” are not
that interested in this work, perceiving it to be “less robust and
therefore of less value than qualitative” The problem is exacerbated
as academics get promoted faster based on research published in “top
journals”. I don’t agree with this – good research is good research
(I actually prefer mixed methods as this incorporates insights for
multiple perspectives to triangulate the data).

I do peer reviews for three journals, all of which are open to
qualitative. My original background was highly quantitative science
and I realised that when scientists believe they are “controlling”
the experiment, mostly they are not. The concept that everything
comes back to cause and effect that can be predicted and measured
simply is a poor assumption in human social systems. The original
post highlighted the bias in what gets published and perhaps with
some wider searching there are more journals with more qualitative,
but we are a long way for balancing the message.

From the business side it is hard to sell soft options too, but the
intangibles can be measured indirectly and converted back to value
(I have done this many times with good influence in commercial
situation - but I am sure that the journals would not see it as
publishable). This is why a majority of practitioners (I consider
myself a hybrid) don’t bother with the academic literature and
academics don’t bother with the practitioner literature (I have a
chapter about the power of opportunities to cross fertilise between
the two this in my forthcoming book).

Regards

*/Arthur Shelley/*

Intelligent Answers

*Founder:*The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

*Author:*The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOW/ledge/ SUCCESS/ion/

*Mb.*+61 413 047 408 *Skype:* Arthur.Shelley *Twitter:* @Metaphorage

*LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168 *

*Free behavioural profiles:*www.organizationalzoo.com
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com/>

*Blog:*www.organizationalzoo.com/blog
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com/blog>

*From:*sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
*Sent:* Monday, 5 October 2015 3:08 PM
*To:* sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM

To expand a little further, KM researchers are looking at
intangibles and softer issues as well as the harder tangible
issues. The issue I see is that top research journals favor and
reward the hard tangible issues just like organizations favor that
which they can measure. I think managers want hard answers and
don't like soft answers. All that said, KM research from what I see
is 50/50 between hard and soft issues, you just have to look in the
right places to find it...murray

In a message dated 10/4/2015 8:50:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> writes:




I have to totally disagree. I'm the editor of chief of the
International Journal of Knowledge Management and the Track
co-chair of the Knowledge, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial
Systems Track at the Hawaii International Conference on Systems
Sciences and I have two minitracks on knowledge flows and
knowledge sharing as well as a minitrack on social media in KM,
plus about half the articles I publish in the journal are
researching how knowledge flows between individuals and in an
organization. I would say KM research is half focused on
technology and half on the people/flow issues. Researchers use
action research extensively as well as other soft methodologies
and they look at real organizations. I would guess you'all are
looking at the high end IS research journals that love
quantitative research and not the 20 plus KM journals that look
at all the issues. Thanks...murray

In a message dated 10/4/2015 4:52:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
writes:




Randhir,

I agree that the research literature is focused more of
Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.
However, there is a lot of practice that does not get
researched and published that shows the critical importance
of connections between people that stimulate the flow of
knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it
is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than
quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen
to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge
initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely
intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed
leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing,
engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition
etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible
complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design,
simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures,
policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really
happening, researchers would benefit from engaging in
action research studies and engage with the practitioners
making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this
is done commercially and insights into this are considered
knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights
don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the
literature bias.

Regards

*/Arthur Shelley/*

Intelligent Answers

*Founder:*The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

*Author:*The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful
Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOW/ledge/ SUCCESS/ion/

*Mb.*+61 413 047 408 *Skype:* Arthur.Shelley *Twitter:*
@Metaphorage

*LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168 *

*Free behavioural profiles:*www.organizationalzoo.com
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com/>

*Blog:*www.organizationalzoo.com/blog
<http://www.organizationalzoo.com/blog>

*From:*sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
*To:* sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
*Subject:* [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

*[Attachment(s) <mip://0e86b468/default.html#TopText> from
Randhir R.P included below]*

Hi,

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on
papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I
considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

My main inferences are:

•Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge
sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

•Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an
object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared
and protected

•Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in
technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding
is missing

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other
functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly
that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

Regards

Randhir

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P
<randhir.rp@gmail.com <mailto:randhir.rp@gmail.com>> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been
their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it
is time for it to have a place of its own and clear
focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay
competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities
getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not
get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give
to the mother earth.

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and
collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one
that gets discussed the most. There are many more
practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double
loop learning), knowledge enabled process etc. I am
sure you will be add more to this.

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will
talk about

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners
(and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching
and as a result learn more about this subject whose
roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

Regards

Dr. Randhir Pushpa


Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Arthur/Murray,

Thank you for sharing information on the current state of KM research and publication. The new and emerging areas may come in as intangibles initially, but as the adoption improves, it may become more tangible and lead to more adoption. I could see some interesting articles on Knowledge flow from APQC. Hope to see more and more of this coming.

The 'Rethinking KM' posts are aimed at generating discussions on the current focus of KM and moving away from the current comfort zone of Knowledge as objects.

I have been researching and practising KM for around 15 years. As years pass by I am becoming more and more convinced that this function is going to change the we manage organizations and the way employees work.

I observed that research fraternity or practitioners are not able to do justice to this topic. The report I shared was a dip-stick to understand what the scenario is, but the results showed that most of the work stil is happening around KM as an object concepts. 

As a practitioner and a researcher, I see KM having the capability to redefine the way we work and organize. I am working towards pushing the boundary of KM beyond 'object'.

Regards

Randhir

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:51 PM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Yes Murray,

 

We are in complete agreement on all of this.

As much as I like to take a contradictory position to enhance a good argument, one has to be sensible on occasion :)

This is why I read a range of materials across fields, disciplines and “levels” of journals. I wold love to read even more, but there is simply too much literature to be across it all.  I think that part of the problem is people don’t have time to read much, especially on concepts out of their immediate line of sight and this unfortunately includes KM for many academics and practitioners alike.

 

I semi-retired so I would have more time to learn more and do less, but of course the two are inextricably linked. We learn best by doing and challenging ourselves to explore unfamiliar territories. However, in doing this we create new knowledge for ourselves and for those we interact with. This is why we benefit from exploring both quant and qual aspects of everything we do (life in itself is a reflective experiment, much of which we don’t understand unless we take the time to connect with the emergent patterns and waves we create). Humans as social creatures co-create knowledge best in social contexts that impact directly on what they are doing- the rest remains t hint he realm of theory for them.  It is only once we apply what we know that we truly create (or destroy) value.  Combining theoretical aspects and practical experiences of knowledge give us optimal outcomes, but to many people are too busy to invest the time to make sense of this to enhance their performance over time…

This is where the gold is, if only we had the time to prospect it better. 

 

I am familiar with your journal and have referenced it and sent students to it for my Knowledge Driven Performance MBA course. They often refer to articles form it, so we make some progress as we influence business practitioners to leverage theoretical concepts to enhance their thinking and strategic planning.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2015 8:18 PM


To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM

 

 

Arthur,

 

We really do agree on the top journals bias on methodology, I've rejected several summary articles because the authors thought it only appropriate to look at KM in the top journals and ignore the 20+ KM journals.  It is an unacceptable bias.  My rule on methods is you can do whatever method you want as long as it is appropriate to the research aim and the method is done rigorously and well (this is how I judge quality research).  I usually encourage authors not to call their methodology mixed methods as my read on methodology is that most all methods allow qualitative and quantitative measures so don't really need to call it mixed (my experience is that publishers don't know what mixed is).

 

Additionally, I also am a practitioner turned academic having spent 20 years as an engineer in the commercial nuclear industry.

 

I have been fortunate in that I have been able to make full professor by convincing my college and colleagues that KM is its own socio-technical discipline that requires a variety of research methods.

 

Of course I've also had to demonstrate my ability to do solid quantitative work and have a paper coming out where we used quantitative methods to confirm measures of KM success, even though they make good sense through other methods I still have to do the stats on occasion. 

 

I have found it humorous how often business falls for the hard measures salespeople only to discover that the measures don't always apply and a soft approach is needed to adapt them.

 

For what its worth, I did a talk at ACKMIDS a few years ago on bridging the difference between doing and knowing and have been a writer in the research relevance debate, pointing out you get what you reward so if you want research relevant to business you need to use methodologies that go deep into understanding business.

 

My real point is that the KM journals do tend to support action research and soft methods research while the top tier IS journals do not.  We just need to convince business to read the KM journals and not the top tier IS journals.....murray

 

In a message dated 10/5/2015 1:54:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@... writes:




Murray,

 

I think we are furiously agreeing on some aspects of his based on similar observations.  I congratulate you and your journal for publishing qualitative papers and supporting action research and soft capabilities research. Perhaps I should get my students to send their papers your way.

 

However, we all know that the majority of “top journals” are not that interested in this work, perceiving it to be “less robust and therefore of less value than qualitative” The problem is exacerbated as academics get promoted faster based on research published in “top journals”. I don’t agree with this – good research is good research (I actually prefer mixed methods as this incorporates insights for multiple perspectives to triangulate the data).

 

I do peer reviews for three journals, all of which are open to qualitative.  My original background was highly quantitative science and I realised that when scientists believe they are “controlling” the experiment, mostly they are not.   The concept that everything comes back to cause and effect that can be predicted and measured simply is a poor assumption in human social systems.  The original post highlighted the bias in what gets published and perhaps with some wider searching there are more journals with more qualitative, but we are  a long way for balancing the message. 

From the business side it is hard to sell soft options too, but the intangibles can be measured indirectly and converted back to value (I have done this many times with good influence in commercial situation - but I am sure that the journals would not see it as publishable).  This is why a majority of practitioners (I consider myself a hybrid) don’t bother with the academic literature and academics don’t bother with the practitioner literature (I have a chapter about the power of opportunities to cross fertilise between the two this in my forthcoming book).

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2015 3:08 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM

 

 

To expand a little further, KM researchers are looking at intangibles and softer issues as well as the harder tangible issues.  The issue I see is that top research journals favor and reward the hard tangible issues just like organizations favor that which they can measure.  I think managers want hard answers and don't like soft answers.  All that said, KM research from what I see is 50/50 between hard and soft issues, you just have to look in the right places to find it...murray

 

In a message dated 10/4/2015 8:50:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@... writes:





I have to totally disagree.  I'm the editor of chief of the International Journal of Knowledge Management and the Track co-chair of the Knowledge, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Systems Track at the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences and I have two minitracks on knowledge flows and knowledge sharing as well as a minitrack on social media in KM, plus about half the articles I publish in the journal are researching how knowledge flows between individuals and in an organization.  I would say KM research is half focused on technology and half on the people/flow issues.  Researchers use action research extensively as well as other soft methodologies and they look at real organizations.  I would guess you'all are looking at the high end IS research journals that love quantitative research and not the 20 plus KM journals that look at all the issues.  Thanks...murray

 

In a message dated 10/4/2015 4:52:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sikmleaders@... writes:





Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 



Randhir Pushpa
 

That's right Arthur! This reminds me of the session in Singapore on how KM was used to promote a culture of Innovation. Interestingly that culture is in a sustenance mode with minimal involvement from us and we are seeing good growth in the Patenting culture.

Regards

Randhir

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:21 PM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Yes Randhir,

 

Disruptive …

and in being so (when well facilitated) drives innovation, creativity, adaptability and develops capabilities for future sustained performance.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2015 12:01 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM

 

 

Hi Arthur/Howard/Stephen,

 

Thank you for the pretty interesting view points that you shared. From the responses I understand that their is life beyond knowledge as an Object. For KM to be a horizontal function in its true sense this is very important. 

 

Treating Knowledge as an object (and the consequence practices) is a comfort zone not only for researchers KM practitioners but also for other functions of the organization. The moment focus and definition of Knowledge goes beyond as an object it starts touching other functions and also leads to turf war.

 

For example: Take the case of lessons learned and best practices. When it is practiced in a reactive way, the focus is on Knowledge as an object. The subsequent practices would be capturing the lessons learned and best practices, updating that in a database and making it available through web-enabled mediums for users. In a proactive approach the definition of knowledge changes that to a process (embedded knowledge). What is learned and the best practices then gets ploughed back into 'continuous improvement'. The focus of KM practice then becomes capturing the lessons learned and fine tuning the existing process with the new learning and improving it further. The moment that happens KM enters the domain of quality and process functions. Same is the case when 'Knowledge sharing and collaboration' is moved from reactive to proactive. KM enters the domain of Training and Development function.

 

To understand, appreciate and allow KM in its true sense to impact the organization, there is a need to re-look into the definition of 'Organization and organizing' and what is required for 'Organization and organizing' to be a success. In a nut shell KM function is disruptive.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

 

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

Hi Howard and Randhir,

I'm very pleased to hear your discussions in support of a broader, evidence-based approach to knowledge management.

I have long felt the same way. To try and help shift the debate, Bruce Boyes and I have just launched RealKM magazine (realkm.com) as a way to encourage knowledge and discussion about the findings of high-value knowledge management research in concise, practically-oriented articles. Here's a few examples of recently published articles:

  How Machiavellians affect organisations
  The network science of career success
  Out of the box ideas need a familiar framework for acceptance

It's very important to me that we explore findings from both within and outside KM, including disciplines such as communications, marketing, psychology, biology, sociology, and management research. I would love people on this list and elsewhere to check it out and to join the debate on how to ensure we have more practical and productive discussions on KM going forward.

Randhir: More practically, would you mind if I published an article about your summarisation of research? Or would you like to expand on what you've found for an article on RealKM? I think it's an important piece of the puzzle.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/10/2015 11:33 PM, Howard Cohen howardscohenmba@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

Randhir, 

 

              I would agree with Arthur.  I have hundreds of documents and artifacts discussing KM but more often than not these touch on intangible concepts but focus more on tangible.   As a practice leader in a large organization, I understand why this happens but it does leave a gap.   There is a natural order to how people / humans function and behave but humanity doesn't really convey well to large business.   How many organizational or industrial psychologists are on staff at most large companies?  Is the human resource department about "being human" or about managing personnel?   When it comes to knowledge in an organization, we have a crew change problem that is causing a problem in companies across the globe .  Many leaders know that crew change is a problem but the costs in the short term overwhelm their senses and they can't see the larger picture / value.  The fact that large companies are well aware of the problems and seem stymied is perplexing.  That being the case, I have leveraged this group and others to build a more diversified practice towards solving these challenges. 

 

There are two basic approaches to my knowledge practice, the first is to find ways to measure everything.  What is the value of a hug?  We look to find a business value, impact and indication for that.    The second is to wrap as many intangible practices into tangible as possible.  For example, we leverage "working out loud" as a corporate practice and we build stories from the actions and activities performed in that practice but we are aware of and we encourage the human factors.  I meet with our innovation officer, information officer and our human resource chief on a monthly basis to keep all parties informed and course correct as needed.   Research doesn't generally document this kind of practice. 

 

Best, 

Howie  

 

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

Randhir,

 

I agree that the research literature is focused more of Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.  However, there is a lot of practice that does not get researched and published that shows the critical importance of connections between people that stimulate the flow of knowledge in organisations to create value.

This does not get well reported in the research because it is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing, engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design, simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures, policies, rules, document control…) spaces.

 

To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really happening, researchers would  benefit from engaging in action research studies and engage with the practitioners making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this is done commercially and insights into this are considered knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the literature bias.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Intelligent Answers

Founder: The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Author: The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader

New Book due out 2015: KNOWledge SUCCESSion

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Randhir R.P included below]

Hi,

 

I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.

 

My main inferences are:

 

Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM

Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared and protected

Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding is missing

 

If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.

 

Regards

 

Randhir

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P <randhir.rp@...> wrote:

KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it is time for it to have a place of its own and clear focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.

 

There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give to the mother earth.

 

From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one that gets discussed the most. There are many more practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double loop learning),  knowledge enabled process etc. I am sure you will be add more to this.

 

In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will talk about

 

- Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners (and what we are missing!!)

- The disruptive power of KM

- The new way of working

 

I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching and as a result learn more about this subject whose roots run deeper than what we can fathom.

 

Regards

 

Dr. Randhir Pushpa

 

 

 

 



Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Stephen,

Probably I might not have articulated myself correctly. I am from the KM function and facilitate this practice across groups. 

The turf war that I mentioned are those that I visualise as happening. Luckily as of now the other groups are accommodating the innovations we are coming out with. For example to promote 'Knowledge sharing and Self-Learning culture' we are adopting a structured approach. We cross leverage SMEs, have sessions on weekly basis and promote knowledge sharing through social networking platform. As we mature we realise that we are getting into the domain of Learning and Development. They have been gracious enough to include us on a quarterly basis when they are planning for training sessions. I could though see this specific practice of KM function growing and making Learning and Development redundant. 

I would also like to delve into what was mentioned below: ' ... so a technology-based approach if you're part of IT, an asset-based approach if you're in Finance, a capability- or training-based approach if part of HR, a project-bounded approach if you're in the project management unit, or a team-based approach if you are doing KM inside a particular team."

This is a very good approach and can give us lot of learning on how KM can be managed. Let me explain this further. If we share concepts of KM to each function of an organization and leave it to them to manage, they may come out with interventions that are of relevance to them. In that scenario, an IT team would focus on technology based knowledge management and probably focus on better ways of connecting people, Finance may come out with ways to leverage assets better, HR will come out with means to identify and close knowledge gaps and Project management will come out with ways to inculcate knowledge into the delivery cycle. 

Regards

Randhir


On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hi Randhir,

Agreed. But to be honest, if you're doing Knowledge Management and *not*
going into other people's turf then I would question what you are doing.

Most likely it means that you have accepted the limitations of what KM
can be based on your "home" business unit ... so a technology-based
approach if you're part of IT, an asset-based approach if you're in
Finance, a capability- or training-based approach if part of HR, a
project-bounded approach if you're in the project management unit, or a
team-based approach if you are doing KM inside a particular team.

It's a wasted opportunity because as Arthur says, it's the
cross-fertilisation and rethinking of assumptions across boundaries that
drives the real innovation.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 5/10/2015 8:51 PM, 'Arthur' arthur@...
[sikmleaders] wrote:
> Yes Randhir,
>
> Disruptive …
>
> and in being so (when well facilitated) drives innovation, creativity,
> adaptability and develops capabilities for future sustained performance.
>
> Regards
>
> */Arthur Shelley/*
>
> Intelligent Answers
>
> *Founder:*The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network
>
> *Author:*The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader
>
> New Book due out 2015: KNOW/ledge/ SUCCESS/ion/
>
> *Mb.*+61 413 047 408 *Skype:* Arthur.Shelley *Twitter:* @Metaphorage
>
> *LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168 *
>
> *Free behavioural profiles:*www.organizationalzoo.com
> <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/>
>
> *Blog:*www.organizationalzoo.com/blog
> <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/blog>
>
> *From:*sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
> *Sent:* Monday, 5 October 2015 12:01 PM
> *To:* sikmleaders@...
> *Subject:* Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM


>
> Hi Arthur/Howard/Stephen,
>
> Thank you for the pretty interesting view points that you shared. From
> the responses I understand that their is life beyond knowledge as an
> Object. For KM to be a horizontal function in its true sense this is
> very important.
>
> Treating Knowledge as an object (and the consequence practices) is a
> comfort zone not only for researchers KM practitioners but also for
> other functions of the organization. The moment focus and definition of
> Knowledge goes beyond as an object it starts touching other functions
> and also leads to turf war.
>
> For example: Take the case of lessons learned and best practices. When
> it is practiced in a reactive way, the focus is on Knowledge as an
> object. The subsequent practices would be capturing the lessons learned
> and best practices, updating that in a database and making it available
> through web-enabled mediums for users. In a proactive approach the
> definition of knowledge changes that to a process (embedded knowledge).
> What is learned and the best practices then gets ploughed back into
> 'continuous improvement'. The focus of KM practice then becomes
> capturing the lessons learned and fine tuning the existing process with
> the new learning and improving it further. The moment that happens KM
> enters the domain of quality and process functions. Same is the case
> when 'Knowledge sharing and collaboration' is moved from reactive to
> proactive. KM enters the domain of Training and Development function.
>
> To understand, appreciate and allow KM in its true sense to impact the
> organization, there is a need to re-look into the definition of
> 'Organization and organizing' and what is required for 'Organization and
> organizing' to be a success. In a nut shell KM function is disruptive.
>
> Regards
>
> Randhir
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Stephen Bounds km@...
> km@...> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...
> sikmleaders@...>> wrote:
>
> Hi Howard and Randhir,
>
> I'm very pleased to hear your discussions in support of a broader,
> evidence-based approach to knowledge management.
>
> I have long felt the same way. To try and help shift the debate,
> Bruce Boyes and I have just launched RealKM magazine (realkm.com
> <http://realkm.com>) as a way to encourage knowledge and discussion
> about the findings of high-value knowledge management research in
> concise, practically-oriented articles. Here's a few examples of
> recently published articles:
>
> How Machiavellians affect organisations
> <http://realkm.com/2015/08/19/the-psychology-of-machiavellians-in-the-21st-century-jeffrey-braithwaite/>
> The network science of career success
> <http://realkm.com/2015/09/03/network-science-career-success/> Out
> of the box ideas need a familiar framework for acceptance
> <http://realkm.com/2015/10/02/ideas-from-outside-the-box-increases-impact/>
>
> It's very important to me that we explore findings from both within
> and outside KM, including disciplines such as communications,
> marketing, psychology, biology, sociology, and management research.
> I would love people on this list and elsewhere to check it out and
> to join the debate on how to ensure we have more practical and
> productive discussions on KM going forward.
>
> *Randhir:* More practically, would you mind if I published an
> article about your summarisation of research? Or would you like to
> expand on what you've found for an article on RealKM? I think it's
> an important piece of the puzzle.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Stephen.
>
> ====================================
>
> Stephen Bounds
>
> Director & Principal Consultant
>
> knowquestion Pty Ltd
>
> E:sb@... sb@...>
>
> M: 0401 829 096
>
> ====================================
>
> On 4/10/2015 11:33 PM, Howard Cohen howardscohenmba@...
> howardscohenmba@...> [sikmleaders] wrote:
>
> Randhir,
>
> I would agree with Arthur. I have hundreds of
> documents and artifacts discussing KM but more often than not
> these touch on intangible concepts but focus more on tangible.
> As a practice leader in a large organization, I understand why
> this happens but it does leave a gap. There is a natural order
> to how people / humans function and behave but humanity doesn't
> really convey well to large business. How many organizational
> or industrial psychologists are on staff at most large
> companies? Is the human resource department about "being human"
> or about managing personnel? When it comes to knowledge in an
> organization, we have a crew change problem that is causing a
> problem in companies across the globe . Many leaders know that
> crew change is a problem but the costs in the short term
> overwhelm their senses and they can't see the larger picture /
> value. The fact that large companies are well aware of the
> problems and seem stymied is perplexing. That being the case, I
> have leveraged this group and others to build a more diversified
> practice towards solving these challenges.
>
> There are two basic approaches to my knowledge practice, the
> first is to find ways to measure everything. What is the value
> of a hug? We look to find a business value, impact and
> indication for that. The second is to wrap as many intangible
> practices into tangible as possible. For example, we leverage
> "working out loud" as a corporate practice and we build stories
> from the actions and activities performed in that practice but
> we are aware of and we encourage the human factors. I meet with
> our innovation officer, information officer and our human
> resource chief on a monthly basis to keep all parties informed
> and course correct as needed. Research doesn't generally
> document this kind of practice.
>
> Best,
>
> Howie
>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:52 AM, 'Arthur'
> arthur@...
> arthur@...> [sikmleaders]
> <sikmleaders@...

> sikmleaders@...>> wrote:
>
> Randhir,
>
> I agree that the research literature is focused more of
> Knowledge as an object than a flow or social connections.
> However, there is a lot of practice that does not get
> researched and published that shows the critical importance
> of connections between people that stimulate the flow of
> knowledge in organisations to create value.
>
> This does not get well reported in the research because it
> is not easy to measure and is more qualitative than
> quantitative (which many academic journals are not as keen
> to publish). The more valuable aspects of knowledge
> initiatives happen the complex domain and are largely
> intangible (trust, tacit insights, knowledge informed
> leadership, experience, mentoring, relationships, sharing,
> engagement, risk understanding, creativity and intuition
> etc). However, researchers prefer to work in more tangible
> complicated (decision analysis, expertise, design,
> simulations, innovation plans…) and simple (procedures,
> policies, rules, document control…) spaces.
>
> To tap into a more complete understanding of what is really
> happening, researchers would benefit from engaging in
> action research studies and engage with the practitioners
> making the knowledge informed changes. The problem is, this
> is done commercially and insights into this are considered
> knowledge for competitive advantage. So many such insights
> don’t get shared or published, thereby reinforcing the
> literature bias.
>
> Regards
>
> */Arthur Shelley/*
>
> Intelligent Answers
>
> *Founder:*The Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network
>
> *Author:*The Organizational Zoo & Being a Successful
> Knowledge Leader
>
> New Book due out 2015: KNOW/ledge/ SUCCESS/ion/
>
> *Mb.*+61 413 047 408 <tel:%2B61%20413%20047%20408> *Skype:*
> Arthur.Shelley *Twitter:* @Metaphorage
>
> *LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168 *
>
> *Free behavioural profiles:*www.organizationalzoo.com
> <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/>
>
> *Blog:*www.organizationalzoo.com/blog
> <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/blog>
>
> *From:*sikmleaders@...
> sikmleaders@...>
> [mailto:sikmleaders@...
> sikmleaders@...>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 3 October 2015 8:22 PM
> *To:* sikmleaders@...
> sikmleaders@...>
> *Subject:* [sikmleaders] Re: Rethinking KM [1 Attachment]
>
> *[Attachment(s) <#15034c503185b3dd_15032b1f65895357_TopTe>
> from Randhir R.P included below]*
>
> Hi,
>
> I am sharing with you a short keyword based study report on
> papers that appeared in Journal of Knowledge Management. I
> considered year 2014 and 2015 and around 132 papers were there.
>
> My main inferences are:
>
> •Research mostly focus on areas related to Knowledge
> sharing, transfer, social networking, impact and benefits of KM
>
> •Across these papers underlying theme is Knowledge is an
> object that needs to be acquired, created, stored, shared
> and protected
>
> •Emphasis on Knowledge can also be as embedded in
> technologies, rules and procedure; collective understanding
> is missing
>
> If KM has to grow into a horizontal function as other
> functions like HR, it has to bring in original ideas. Sadly
> that is not reflecting in the papers from the titles mentioned.
>
> Looking forward to your thoughts and ideas.
>
> Regards
>
> Randhir
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Randhir R.P
> <randhir.rp@... randhir.rp@...>> wrote:
>
> KM is a new realisation of a practice that has been
> their for ages. It has links with many functions, but it
> is time for it to have a place of its own and clear
> focus. It is not just for the organizations to stay
> competitive, but also for humanity as a whole.
>
> There is lot of wastage happening and opportunities
> getting missed everywhere, because knowledge does not
> get leveraged the way it should be. KM has a lot to give
> to the mother earth.
>
> From a practice perspective knowledge sharing and
> collaboration is just one of the practice, but the one
> that gets discussed the most. There are many more
> practices like 'Learning Culture' (Single and double
> loop learning), knowledge enabled process etc. I am
> sure you will be add more to this.
>
> In my series of threads that I would be sharing, I will
> talk about
>
> - Knowledge and what we are touching as practitioners
> (and what we are missing!!)
>
> - The disruptive power of KM
>
> - The new way of working
>
> I hope to generate enough discussion and soul searching
> and as a result learn more about this subject whose
> roots run deeper than what we can fathom.
>
> Regards
>
> Dr. Randhir Pushpa
>
>