Topics

ESN threatening KM function? #ESN


Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi,

Past few months I have been working with a group in my organization, building a social networking platform for them and working on culture change for its adoption. It is very nice to see how a group comes to life virtually. In this case the group is spread across the world.

 

ESN adoption in organization is resulting in creation of new roles like community managers and administrators. It is also giving some concrete metrics, something that KM was not able to give. Roles like Community manager will not be part time in the long run and there will be need for full time Community managers. Some organizations may be having this role but this is going to be more common.

 

While the future is interesting, what is of concern is that ESN and related interventions are kind of threatening the KM function which is trying to find its feat.

 

ESN is just a sub set of KM function, but since ESN has got more mind-share and a huge ESN software market, there is good possibility that KM function would get sidelined. As KM practitioners we have to move very fast to establish the super set, sub set relationship. There is a win-win relationship, but that needs to be evolved.


Thoughts?


Regards


Randhir


Howie Cohen
 

Randhir, 

            ESN is an important lever.. the challenge is that often times ESN falls into the hands of Corporate Communications.   The platforms then become broadcast and teams don't feel comfortable answering or communicating on the platforms aside from cell or group mentality.  Now, instead of KM companies are learning about Digital Workplace.   Now it gets even more complicated.   The real challenge is getting people together at the senior leadership level and getting them on the page of "win together."  ESN by itself won't do that when HR is monitoring for anything that looks like a bad seed and people are afraid to post.   It also doesn't work when it is all broadcast, all the time.    Point is.. we all better start speaking digital.. 

Best, 
Howie 


 



On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:49 AM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hi,

Past few months I have been working with a group in my organization, building a social networking platform for them and working on culture change for its adoption. It is very nice to see how a group comes to life virtually. In this case the group is spread across the world.

 

ESN adoption in organization is resulting in creation of new roles like community managers and administrators. It is also giving some concrete metrics, something that KM was not able to give. Roles like Community manager will not be part time in the long run and there will be need for full time Community managers. Some organizations may be having this role but this is going to be more common.

 

While the future is interesting, what is of concern is that ESN and related interventions are kind of threatening the KM function which is trying to find its feat.

 

ESN is just a sub set of KM function, but since ESN has got more mind-share and a huge ESN software market, there is good possibility that KM function would get sidelined. As KM practitioners we have to move very fast to establish the super set, sub set relationship. There is a win-win relationship, but that needs to be evolved.


Thoughts?


Regards


Randhir



Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Randhir,

KM has survived worse, ever since Enterprise 2.0 was a thing.

I still strongly believe there would be value in, as a group, encouraging HR to distinguish between high-level KM design/strategy and mid-level knowledge solutions implementation. This would prevent the KM "brand" being being used to describe lower-level roles that really have little to do with the discipline and science of KM.

We need to be engineers or architects rather than kit home builders, if you will.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

On 29/06/2016 12:49 AM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@gmail.com [sikmleaders] wrote:


Hi,

Past few months I have been working with a group in my organization,
building a social networking platform for them and working on culture
change for its adoption. It is very nice to see how a group comes to
life virtually. In this case the group is spread across the world.



ESN adoption in organization is resulting in creation of new roles like
community managers and administrators. It is also giving some concrete
metrics, something that KM was not able to give. Roles like Community
manager will not be part time in the long run and there will be need for
full time Community managers. Some organizations may be having this role
but this is going to be more common.



While the future is interesting, what is of concern is that ESN and
related interventions are kind of threatening the KM function which is
trying to find its feat.



ESN is just a sub set of KM function, but since ESN has got more
mind-share and a huge ESN software market, there is good possibility
that KM function would get sidelined. As KM practitioners we have to
move very fast to establish the super set, sub set relationship. There
is a win-win relationship, but that needs to be evolved.


Thoughts?


Regards


Randhir


Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Howard,

You are right about Community platform being managed by Corporate Communication. An enterprise social networking platform is 10% technology and 90% change management. Corporate communication teams end up using it as broadcasting channel as you said.

By the way though Digital workspace is promising and it will improve collaboration, I do not think it will help in leveraging KM in the true sense unless practitioners are involved.

There is a need for us practitioners to become activists and make organizations realise that it is the only function that can help them stay competitive. HR, Quality can help in sustenance for a year or two but growth and sustenance in the long run is possible only if knowledge is managed properly.

Regards

Randhir

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Howard Cohen howardscohenmba@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Randhir, 

            ESN is an important lever.. the challenge is that often times ESN falls into the hands of Corporate Communications.   The platforms then become broadcast and teams don't feel comfortable answering or communicating on the platforms aside from cell or group mentality.  Now, instead of KM companies are learning about Digital Workplace.   Now it gets even more complicated.   The real challenge is getting people together at the senior leadership level and getting them on the page of "win together."  ESN by itself won't do that when HR is monitoring for anything that looks like a bad seed and people are afraid to post.   It also doesn't work when it is all broadcast, all the time.    Point is.. we all better start speaking digital.. 

Best, 
Howie 


 



On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:49 AM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hi,

Past few months I have been working with a group in my organization, building a social networking platform for them and working on culture change for its adoption. It is very nice to see how a group comes to life virtually. In this case the group is spread across the world.

 

ESN adoption in organization is resulting in creation of new roles like community managers and administrators. It is also giving some concrete metrics, something that KM was not able to give. Roles like Community manager will not be part time in the long run and there will be need for full time Community managers. Some organizations may be having this role but this is going to be more common.

 

While the future is interesting, what is of concern is that ESN and related interventions are kind of threatening the KM function which is trying to find its feat.

 

ESN is just a sub set of KM function, but since ESN has got more mind-share and a huge ESN software market, there is good possibility that KM function would get sidelined. As KM practitioners we have to move very fast to establish the super set, sub set relationship. There is a win-win relationship, but that needs to be evolved.


Thoughts?


Regards


Randhir




Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Stephen,

KM will survive because it is a concept having a strong base. It will survive because humanity progresses as knowledge is managed and leveraged better. The only thing is as long as organizations do not understand and leverage knowledge effectively, they will remain inefficient and ineffective.

Regards

Randhir

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hi Randhir,

KM has survived worse, ever since Enterprise 2.0 was a thing.

I still strongly believe there would be value in, as a group,
encouraging HR to distinguish between high-level KM design/strategy and
mid-level knowledge solutions implementation. This would prevent the KM
"brand" being being used to describe lower-level roles that really have
little to do with the discipline and science of KM.

We need to be engineers or architects rather than kit home builders, if
you will.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

On 29/06/2016 12:49 AM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@... [sikmleaders]
wrote:


>
>
> Hi,
>
> Past few months I have been working with a group in my organization,
> building a social networking platform for them and working on culture
> change for its adoption. It is very nice to see how a group comes to
> life virtually. In this case the group is spread across the world.
>
>
>
> ESN adoption in organization is resulting in creation of new roles like
> community managers and administrators. It is also giving some concrete
> metrics, something that KM was not able to give. Roles like Community
> manager will not be part time in the long run and there will be need for
> full time Community managers. Some organizations may be having this role
> but this is going to be more common.
>
>
>
> While the future is interesting, what is of concern is that ESN and
> related interventions are kind of threatening the KM function which is
> trying to find its feat.
>
>
>
> ESN is just a sub set of KM function, but since ESN has got more
> mind-share and a huge ESN software market, there is good possibility
> that KM function would get sidelined. As KM practitioners we have to
> move very fast to establish the super set, sub set relationship. There
> is a win-win relationship, but that needs to be evolved.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Randhir
>
>



Laurence Lock Lee
 

Randhir,

In my view we may need to stop thinking about KM as a function and now more as a capability. Personally I have not seen any organisations growing their KM function in recent years...it fact the opposite. By thinking of KM as a capability, ESN is viewed less as a threat and more as an opportunity to educate Community Managers in the art of KM.

Laurence Lock Lee


Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Laurence,

My view is we should consider KM as a function. It is not because I am a KM practitioner and passionate about it, but because KM has a relevant and well defined role. This role can be leveraged by organizations not only to sustain but grow. The challenge is it is not understood clearly by organizations. 

Let me give some examples:

1. Content management: This is bread butter of KM and even though some of us may feel that it should be underplayed, in reality it has huge impact if managed effectively. No other function of an organization would take the responsibility for this.

2. Building thought leadership: This can be either through Communities of Practice or Knowledge gap management. There are many activities that is done as part of it.

3. Lessons learned and continuous improvement: Includes not only identifying best practices, but building it into existing processes.

ESN and related interventions will help in KM adoption, but generally organizations do not realise and as KM practitioners we are not also able to drive this in.

Regards

Randhir



On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:04 AM, llocklee@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Randhir,


In my view we may need to stop thinking about KM as a function and now more as a capability. Personally I have not seen any organisations growing their KM function in recent years...it fact the opposite. By thinking of KM as a capability, ESN is viewed less as a threat and more as an opportunity to educate Community Managers in the art of KM.

Laurence Lock Lee



tman9999@...
 

Looking at ESNs as a "competitor" to KM makes about as much sense as looking at email as a competitor to KM.

I've spent the last 20 years or so working in and around KM as both an external consultant and an internal practitioner, including the last four years focused entirely on ESN deployment and adoption (Jive). 

To me, my background in KM has equipped me with a wide array of frameworks and perspectives that have informed much of the work I've done around ESN implementation and adoption. We were looking at SNA 15 years ago and asking ourselves what it meant, and how it could be leveraged. If we'd have had tools like Jive or Slack we would have been able to put them to work in solutions we could only dream about back then. 

As a result the work I've done on ESNs has been some of the best work I've ever done, because for the first time I've had access to a tool set that includes robust virtual teaming, community support, expertise mapping and location, document/content management and search, etc. 

In my opinion, we as KM practitioners should be focused on leveraging the existing (i.e., deployed and available) systems, processes, culture and behavior sets to improve productivity and innovation. If a company doesn't have an ESN already, we are often not in much of a position to order one up for enterprise-wide deployment. And if we're fortunate enough to work for a client/enterprise that already does have one deployed, then we are in an excellent position to provide strategic thought leadership and input as to ways it can be leveraged to maximize its value.  


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Randhir,

I tend to agree with Laurence's view that KM is a capability and not a business function.

My view is we should consider KM as a function ... because KM has a relevant
and well defined role.
Surely you jest? My last IM role had more to do with KM than my last KM role. Neither of my managers in those roles could strongly enunciate what they wanted from my team. There's nothing "well-defined" about KM roles that I can detect.

1. Content management: This is bread butter of KM and even though some
of us may feel that it should be underplayed, in reality it has huge
impact if managed effectively. No other function of an organization
would take the responsibility for this.
Sure they would. The Service Desk, the Program Management Office, the Communications team, the Client Management team, the Records group, the Secretariat of the Executive -- all do content management in their own way. None of their work has to have to have a "KM" label on it.

2. Building thought leadership: This can be either through Communities
of Practice or Knowledge gap management. There are many activities
that is done as part of it.
Unless deployed in support of solving specific business problems, these kinds of KM activities are only likely to be sporadically successful and will inevitably be targeted in a future round of business efficiency savings. They have to be rooted in a strong rationale for "why" these activities matter, and backed up by management consensus.

3. Lessons learned and continuous improvement: Includes not only
identifying best practices, but building it into existing processes.
So one of Scrum, Six Sigma, P3M3, Lean, or ITIL? Why would an organisation specifically want a KM person for that?

Sorry -- I am obviously a bit tired and grumpy. But the point is that a KM as a function is always either generic and unfocused, or only looks at a specific use case for KM.

Treating KM as a capability to enable highly targeted business problem solving is, in my view, a far more sustainable approach for our profession.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

On 30/06/2016 11:41 PM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@gmail.com [sikmleaders] wrote:


Hi Laurence,

My view is we should consider KM as a function. It is not because I am a
KM practitioner and passionate about it, but because KM has a relevant
and well defined role. This role can be leveraged by organizations not
only to sustain but grow. The challenge is it is not understood clearly
by organizations.

Let me give some examples:

1. Content management: This is bread butter of KM and even though some
of us may feel that it should be underplayed, in reality it has huge
impact if managed effectively. No other function of an organization
would take the responsibility for this.

2. Building thought leadership: This can be either through Communities
of Practice or Knowledge gap management. There are many activities that
is done as part of it.

3. Lessons learned and continuous improvement: Includes not only
identifying best practices, but building it into existing processes.

ESN and related interventions will help in KM adoption, but generally
organizations do not realise and as KM practitioners we are not also
able to drive this in.

Regards

Randhir



On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:04 AM, llocklee@gmail.com
<mailto:llocklee@gmail.com> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

__


Randhir,


In my view we may need to stop thinking about KM as a function and
now more as a capability. Personally I have not seen any
organisations growing their KM function in recent years...it fact
the opposite. By thinking of KM as a capability, ESN is viewed less
as a threat and more as an opportunity to educate Community Managers
in the art of KM.

Laurence Lock Lee



Paul McDowall
 

Hi Randhir,
It's good that you've been working with them.  Building strong and effective relationships/partnerships is critical for KM to have some success.  ESN is just another step in the tech evolution in business workplaces and we can learn from the same potential risks for KM that emerged when Intranets first came along, and when company databases (a la Lotus Notes) came along, and when Web 2.0 came along, and when ...   

KM is and always should be about helping business people achieve business goals using whatever technique, tool, capability, technology, etc is in place or could be put in place.  The key is to focus on achieving specific business goals, opportunities and needs.  ESN is no more a potential threat to KM than any of the other technologies.  Similarly, other workplace initiatives like Employee Engagement, Stakeholder Management, etc, are more of a potential ally than a threat.  Other disciplines like Project Management, Human Resources, Learning and Development, Internal Communications, etc. are also great potential allies.  So the key is to build and sustain strong working alliances wherever possible and help focus all the efforts on key specific business value.  

If KM is truly successful it won't be needed as a distinct function or group because the management and workforce will be doing it themselves, naturally, as the way they manage and work. 
Best
Paul


Keshav Rajgopal
 

Stephen,

Very well articulated! I also  believe that many of the popular arms of KM such as lessons learned, CoPs, ECM‎ are tools addressing specific issue or supporting a business process. Can't find good enough reason for KM as a function or department to own/run them in most cases.

Regards 
Keshav

From: Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]
Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2016 8:04 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Reply To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: ESN threatening KM function?

 

Hi Randhir,

I tend to agree with Laurence's view that KM is a capability and not a
business function.

> My view is we should consider KM as a function ... because KM has a relevant
> and well defined role.

Surely you jest? My last IM role had more to do with KM than my last KM
role. Neither of my managers in those roles could strongly enunciate
what they wanted from my team. There's nothing "well-defined" about KM
roles that I can detect.

> 1. Content management: This is bread butter of KM and even though some
> of us may feel that it should be underplayed, in reality it has huge
> impact if managed effectively. No other function of an organization
> would take the responsibility for this.

Sure they would. The Service Desk, the Program Management Office, the
Communications team, the Client Management team, the Records group, the
Secretariat of the Executive -- all do content management in their own
way. None of their work has to have to have a "KM" label on it.

> 2. Building thought leadership: This can be either through Communities
> of Practice or Knowledge gap management. There are many activities
> that is done as part of it.

Unless deployed in support of solving specific business problems, these
kinds of KM activities are only likely to be sporadically successful and
will inevitably be targeted in a future round of business efficiency
savings. They have to be rooted in a strong rationale for "why" these
activities matter, and backed up by management consensus.

> 3. Lessons learned and continuous improvement: Includes not only
> identifying best practices, but building it into existing processes.

So one of Scrum, Six Sigma, P3M3, Lean, or ITIL? Why would an
organisation specifically want a KM person for that?

Sorry -- I am obviously a bit tired and grumpy. But the point is that a
KM as a function is always either generic and unfocused, or only looks
at a specific use case for KM.

Treating KM as a capability to enable highly targeted business problem
solving is, in my view, a far more sustainable approach for our profession.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

On 30/06/2016 11:41 PM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@... [sikmleaders]
wrote:
>
>
> Hi Laurence,
>
> My view is we should consider KM as a function. It is not because I am a
> KM practitioner and passionate about it, but because KM has a relevant
> and well defined role. This role can be leveraged by organizations not
> only to sustain but grow. The challenge is it is not understood clearly
> by organizations.
>
> Let me give some examples:
>
> 1. Content management: This is bread butter of KM and even though some
> of us may feel that it should be underplayed, in reality it has huge
> impact if managed effectively. No other function of an organization
> would take the responsibility for this.
>
> 2. Building thought leadership: This can be either through Communities
> of Practice or Knowledge gap management. There are many activities that
> is done as part of it.
>
> 3. Lessons learned and continuous improvement: Includes not only
> identifying best practices, but building it into existing processes.
>
> ESN and related interventions will help in KM adoption, but generally
> organizations do not realise and as KM practitioners we are not also
> able to drive this in.
>
> Regards
>
> Randhir
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:04 AM, llocklee@...
> [sikmleaders] > > wrote:
>
> __
>
>
> Randhir,
>
>
> In my view we may need to stop thinking about KM as a function and
> now more as a capability. Personally I have not seen any
> organisations growing their KM function in recent years...it fact
> the opposite. By thinking of KM as a capability, ESN is viewed less
> as a threat and more as an opportunity to educate Community Managers
> in the art of KM.
>
> Laurence Lock Lee
>
>
>



Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi,

I wouldn't look at ESN as a competitor to KM. ESN is a natural ally of KM and a tool for practising KM. In the hands of a learned KM practitioner, it will get effectively leveraged to perform different KM functions.

My concern is that organizations will get carried away with ESN based technology and start building ESN systems in organizations with a herd mentality. It will result loosing the essence of KM and more focused on connecting people without realising what the end goal is.

Regards

Randhir

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 7:14 PM, tman9999@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Looking at ESNs as a "competitor" to KM makes about as much sense as looking at email as a competitor to KM.


I've spent the last 20 years or so working in and around KM as both an external consultant and an internal practitioner, including the last four years focused entirely on ESN deployment and adoption (Jive). 

To me, my background in KM has equipped me with a wide array of frameworks and perspectives that have informed much of the work I've done around ESN implementation and adoption. We were looking at SNA 15 years ago and asking ourselves what it meant, and how it could be leveraged. If we'd have had tools like Jive or Slack we would have been able to put them to work in solutions we could only dream about back then. 

As a result the work I've done on ESNs has been some of the best work I've ever done, because for the first time I've had access to a tool set that includes robust virtual teaming, community support, expertise mapping and location, document/content management and search, etc. 

In my opinion, we as KM practitioners should be focused on leveraging the existing (i.e., deployed and available) systems, processes, culture and behavior sets to improve productivity and innovation. If a company doesn't have an ESN already, we are often not in much of a position to order one up for enterprise-wide deployment. And if we're fortunate enough to work for a client/enterprise that already does have one deployed, then we are in an excellent position to provide strategic thought leadership and input as to ways it can be leveraged to maximize its value.  



Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Stephen/Keshav,

With respect to an organization, everything is a capability, and how it manifests is something that is debatable. For example sales and marketing is a capability and is performed by a defined set of employees who are part of a function. Human Resource management is a capability and is performed not only by a set of employees who are part of the HR function, but all the managers, who should also have HR capability. There are some specific HR capability that managers should have, like performance appraisal, Human resource planning, coaching/mentoring. HR function would though focus on setting up policies, initiating and managing appraisals, overseeing employee morale etc. Quality is a capability that everyone in an organization should be having. Quality function carries the responsibility of ensuring quality, but all employees should know what is quality and ensure that in their role.

In the same lines, KM is a capability that an organization has, with a KM function which oversees the following:

- Critical knowledge (Core competency) the organization has, the knowledge that organization should have based on the focus, the knowledge that has to be protected.  
- Ensure smooth flow of knowledge in the organization
- Ensure relevant knowledge is leverage in the different processes of the organization, including easy access to knowledge
- Grow new knowledge, acquire new knowledge
- Ensure employees acquire skills that ensure effective and efficient management of knowledge. 
- Tools, infrastructure and policy that enables KM (ESN included)

These are some that is coming to my mind. If we go through this we can see that like quality it is a capability that everyone in an organization should have. It is also something that cannot be run with a dedicated set of employees.

Relevance of having a separate KM function increases as the knowledge engaged by an organization become complex.

Regards

Randhir


On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hi Randhir,

I tend to agree with Laurence's view that KM is a capability and not a
business function.

> My view is we should consider KM as a function ... because KM has a relevant
> and well defined role.

Surely you jest? My last IM role had more to do with KM than my last KM
role. Neither of my managers in those roles could strongly enunciate
what they wanted from my team. There's nothing "well-defined" about KM
roles that I can detect.

> 1. Content management: This is bread butter of KM and even though some
> of us may feel that it should be underplayed, in reality it has huge
> impact if managed effectively. No other function of an organization
> would take the responsibility for this.

Sure they would. The Service Desk, the Program Management Office, the
Communications team, the Client Management team, the Records group, the
Secretariat of the Executive -- all do content management in their own
way. None of their work has to have to have a "KM" label on it.

> 2. Building thought leadership: This can be either through Communities
> of Practice or Knowledge gap management. There are many activities
> that is done as part of it.

Unless deployed in support of solving specific business problems, these
kinds of KM activities are only likely to be sporadically successful and
will inevitably be targeted in a future round of business efficiency
savings. They have to be rooted in a strong rationale for "why" these
activities matter, and backed up by management consensus.

> 3. Lessons learned and continuous improvement: Includes not only
> identifying best practices, but building it into existing processes.

So one of Scrum, Six Sigma, P3M3, Lean, or ITIL? Why would an
organisation specifically want a KM person for that?

Sorry -- I am obviously a bit tired and grumpy. But the point is that a
KM as a function is always either generic and unfocused, or only looks
at a specific use case for KM.

Treating KM as a capability to enable highly targeted business problem
solving is, in my view, a far more sustainable approach for our profession.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

On 30/06/2016 11:41 PM, 'Randhir R.P' randhir.rp@... [sikmleaders]
wrote:
>
>
> Hi Laurence,
>
> My view is we should consider KM as a function. It is not because I am a
> KM practitioner and passionate about it, but because KM has a relevant
> and well defined role. This role can be leveraged by organizations not
> only to sustain but grow. The challenge is it is not understood clearly
> by organizations.
>
> Let me give some examples:
>
> 1. Content management: This is bread butter of KM and even though some
> of us may feel that it should be underplayed, in reality it has huge
> impact if managed effectively. No other function of an organization
> would take the responsibility for this.
>
> 2. Building thought leadership: This can be either through Communities
> of Practice or Knowledge gap management. There are many activities that
> is done as part of it.
>
> 3. Lessons learned and continuous improvement: Includes not only
> identifying best practices, but building it into existing processes.
>
> ESN and related interventions will help in KM adoption, but generally
> organizations do not realise and as KM practitioners we are not also
> able to drive this in.
>
> Regards
>
> Randhir
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:04 AM, llocklee@...
> llocklee@...> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...
> sikmleaders@...>> wrote:
>
> __
>
>
> Randhir,
>
>
> In my view we may need to stop thinking about KM as a function and
> now more as a capability. Personally I have not seen any
> organisations growing their KM function in recent years...it fact
> the opposite. By thinking of KM as a capability, ESN is viewed less
> as a threat and more as an opportunity to educate Community Managers
> in the art of KM.
>
> Laurence Lock Lee
>
>
>



Randhir Pushpa
 

Hi Paul,

Agree that ESN is not a potential threat. I see it only as a tool that has to be leveraged to manage knowledge effectively. Challenge is with organizations adopting ESN without understanding how it should be leveraged. Organizations are acquiring ESN platform due to herd mentality and the push from ESN vendors. It is now very easy to have ESN platforms, thanks to cloud enabled packages. 

Regards

Randhir

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:14 PM, paul_mcdowall@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Hi Randhir,

It's good that you've been working with them.  Building strong and effective relationships/partnerships is critical for KM to have some success.  ESN is just another step in the tech evolution in business workplaces and we can learn from the same potential risks for KM that emerged when Intranets first came along, and when company databases (a la Lotus Notes) came along, and when Web 2.0 came along, and when ...   

KM is and always should be about helping business people achieve business goals using whatever technique, tool, capability, technology, etc is in place or could be put in place.  The key is to focus on achieving specific business goals, opportunities and needs.  ESN is no more a potential threat to KM than any of the other technologies.  Similarly, other workplace initiatives like Employee Engagement, Stakeholder Management, etc, are more of a potential ally than a threat.  Other disciplines like Project Management, Human Resources, Learning and Development, Internal Communications, etc. are also great potential allies.  So the key is to build and sustain strong working alliances wherever possible and help focus all the efforts on key specific business value.  

If KM is truly successful it won't be needed as a distinct function or group because the management and workforce will be doing it themselves, naturally, as the way they manage and work. 
Best
Paul



Albert Simard
 

Is KM a function?  Is it a capability?  Is it a process?  Is it a way of working?  Yes, - all of the above and others.

 

Like HR, finance, communications and many other things that organizations do, KM does work (asset management, sharing, collaboration…), has ways of doing it (manual, technological, social…), reasons for doing it (increased productivity, competitiveness, sustainability…), and resources to do it with (budgets, technology, knowledge…). 

 

The bottom line is that KM is a way of working that includes most everything that an organization does.  Although not essential to immediate survival (as evidenced by the number of organizations that don’t do it), It enhances success when an organization does it well.  Although KM may shift it’s ways of working as technology evolves, it will always have work to do.

 

Al Simard


jamie.martino16@yahoo.com <jamie.martino16@...>
 

Hello everyone,

I am very much enjoying being a part of this thread, & group for that matter. 

Going back to the original question... 'ESN threatening KM function?' it seems that most companies begin using a SharePoint type of tool and then branch out to various ESNs. In my company, however, we are doing the opposite. We began 2 years ago with an LCMS that functions also as our KM platform, linking formal & informal content to competencies, CoPs, Wikis, Discussion Forums, Ask the Expert, etc. 

Now, as this is not a project management tool, nor an intranet, we'll be launching (in about 6-8 months) a SP 2013 intranet... adding on Yammer in late 2017. Presently, we are working on defining our strategy, in order to ensure the 2 platforms do not overlap in purpose (or at least confuse our Talents in purpose) and that we just do not add on tools blindedly. From this SIKM community, I would like to know if anyone has experience going in this direction, tips/ tricks on integrating SP into a living KM strategy (as I only know the basics of SP 2010 myself), etc.

Your comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Best,
Jamie Martino

Group Learning & Knowledge Manager
MCI Group


On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 18:44, Albert Simard albert.simard@... [sikmleaders]
wrote:
 

Is KM a function?  Is it a capability?  Is it a process?  Is it a way of working?  Yes, - all of the above and others.

 

Like HR, finance, communications and many other things that organizations do, KM does work (asset management, sharing, collaboration…), has ways of doing it (manual, technological, social…), reasons for doing it (increased productivity, competitiveness, sustainability…), and resources to do it with (budgets, technology, knowledge…). 

 

The bottom line is that KM is a way of working that includes most everything that an organization does.  Although not essential to immediate survival (as evidenced by the number of organizations that don’t do it), It enhances success when an organization does it well.  Although KM may shift it’s ways of working as technology evolves, it will always have work to do.

 

Al Simard


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Jamie,

First, a technical warning. SharePoint has historically been one of the worst platforms to upgrade of any major CMS. Many organisations end up stuck on an old version of SharePoint because their sites simply can't be migrated to newer versions without incurring great cost. So bear that in mind before you jump into a SP2013 install given that SP2016 has just gone RTM.

SharePoint's key strength lies in its tight integration with Office. If you don't use Office, I would never recommend SharePoint - without Office, SharePoint is demonstrably worse than competing products in most other ways. Its only real advantage is that it provides a wide range of functionality at a mediocre level.

Also bear in mind that if you have recordkeeping obligations, SharePoint is notoriously bad at applying effective records controls. You will likely need a third-party backend or add-on solution if that's important to you.

So my three big tips and tricks for integrating SharePoint would be:

1. Keep it simple. It is most likely that people are just going to use SharePoint for document sharing, shared calendars, and shared tasks. If you already have other tools for wikis and forum discussions, they are likely better fit for purpose.

2. Only use out of the box functionality and commercial add-ons unless you have a sizeable, realistic budget for development and ongoing customisation of the platform: at least $500,000 up-front and $100,000 annually. Forget what your web/UX/UI guys may say about the interface --
SharePoint is SharePoint, don't try and fix it. If you are determined to customize or use add-ons, see my warning about version upgrades above.

3. Your information architecture choices are critical, particularly for content types and site/site collection/farm structure. With SharePoint, the site structure sets your URL path by default. This means that every time you want to change your navigation structure you will break everyone's links to sites and documents. This is possible to decouple but it's not simple -- see development budget warning.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

On 20/07/2016 6:23 AM, 'jamie.martino16@yahoo.com' jamie.martino16@yahoo.com [sikmleaders] wrote:


Hello everyone,


I am very much enjoying being a part of this thread, & group for that
matter.

Going back to the original question... 'ESN threatening KM function?' it
seems that most companies begin using a SharePoint type of tool and then
branch out to various ESNs. In my company, however, we are doing the
opposite. We began 2 years ago with an LCMS that functions also as our
KM platform, linking formal & informal content to competencies, CoPs,
Wikis, Discussion Forums, Ask the Expert, etc.

Now, as this is not a project management tool, nor an intranet, we'll be
launching (in about 6-8 months) a SP 2013 intranet... adding on Yammer
in late 2017. Presently, we are working on defining our strategy, in
order to ensure the 2 platforms do not overlap in purpose (or at least
confuse our Talents in purpose) and that we just do not add on tools
blindedly. From this SIKM community, I would like to know if anyone has
experience going in this direction, tips/ tricks on integrating SP into
a living KM strategy (as I only know the basics of SP 2010 myself), etc.

Your comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Best,
Jamie Martino

Group Learning & Knowledge Manager
MCI Group

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
<https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>



Is KM a function? Is it a capability? Is it a process? Is it a
way of working? Yes, - all of the above and others.



Like HR, finance, communications and many other things that
organizations do, KM does work (asset management, sharing,
collaboration…), has ways of doing it (manual, technological,
social…), reasons for doing it (increased productivity,
competitiveness, sustainability…), and resources to do it with
(budgets, technology, knowledge…).



The bottom line is that KM is a way of working that includes most
everything that an organization does. Although not essential to
immediate survival (as evidenced by the number of organizations that
don’t do it), It enhances success when an organization does it
well. Although KM may shift it’s ways of working as technology
evolves, it will always have work to do.



Al Simard


Robert L. Bogue
 

Stephen –

 

I think that your characterization that SharePoint is the problem preventing upgrades is an unfair characterization.  I’ve seen clients in most CMSs which are stuck at previous versions.  This is, however, because of customizations not because of the platform.  It may happen that SharePoint tends to get customized more often and there should be a greater warning about customizations, but characterizing the platform as bad – rather than what people do to it – seems unfair.

 

I agree, if you don’t use Microsoft Office, many of SharePoint’s key benefits are nullified.  I further agree that “fixing” the SharePoint UI is a fool’s errand.  (My words)  However, I similarly disagree that recordskeeping is hard to implement in SharePoint.  The problem is in engaging the business to the understanding of what a record is – and how they should be managed.

 

Rob

 

-------------------

Robert L. Bogue

Find me Phone: (317) 844-5310  Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 10:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: ESN threatening KM function?

 

 

Hi Jamie,

First, a technical warning. SharePoint has historically been one of the
worst platforms to upgrade of any major CMS. Many organisations end up
stuck on an old version of SharePoint because their sites simply can't
be migrated to newer versions without incurring great cost. So bear that
in mind before you jump into a SP2013 install given that SP2016 has just
gone RTM.

SharePoint's key strength lies in its tight integration with Office. If
you don't use Office, I would never recommend SharePoint - without
Office, SharePoint is demonstrably worse than competing products in most
other ways. Its only real advantage is that it provides a wide range of
functionality at a mediocre level.

Also bear in mind that if you have recordkeeping obligations, SharePoint
is notoriously bad at applying effective records controls. You will
likely need a third-party backend or add-on solution if that's important
to you.

So my three big tips and tricks for integrating SharePoint would be:

1. Keep it simple. It is most likely that people are just going to use
SharePoint for document sharing, shared calendars, and shared tasks. If
you already have other tools for wikis and forum discussions, they are
likely better fit for purpose.

2. Only use out of the box functionality and commercial add-ons unless
you have a sizeable, realistic budget for development and ongoing
customisation of the platform: at least $500,000 up-front and $100,000
annually. Forget what your web/UX/UI guys may say about the interface --
SharePoint is SharePoint, don't try and fix it. If you are determined to
customize or use add-ons, see my warning about version upgrades above.

3. Your information architecture choices are critical, particularly for
content types and site/site collection/farm structure. With SharePoint,
the site structure sets your URL path by default. This means that every
time you want to change your navigation structure you will break
everyone's links to sites and documents. This is possible to decouple
but it's not simple -- see development budget warning.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

On 20/07/2016 6:23 AM, 'jamie.martino16@...'
jamie.martino16@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I am very much enjoying being a part of this thread, & group for that
> matter.
>
> Going back to the original question... 'ESN threatening KM function?' it
> seems that most companies begin using a SharePoint type of tool and then
> branch out to various ESNs. In my company, however, we are doing the
> opposite. We began 2 years ago with an LCMS that functions also as our
> KM platform, linking formal & informal content to competencies, CoPs,
> Wikis, Discussion Forums, Ask the Expert, etc.
>
> Now, as this is not a project management tool, nor an intranet, we'll be
> launching (in about 6-8 months) a SP 2013 intranet... adding on Yammer
> in late 2017. Presently, we are working on defining our strategy, in
> order to ensure the 2 platforms do not overlap in purpose (or at least
> confuse our Talents in purpose) and that we just do not add on tools
> blindedly. From this SIKM community, I would like to know if anyone has
> experience going in this direction, tips/ tricks on integrating SP into
> a living KM strategy (as I only know the basics of SP 2010 myself), etc.
>
> Your comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated.
>
> Best,
> Jamie Martino
>
> Group Learning & Knowledge Manager
> MCI Group
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
>
>
>
> Is KM a function? Is it a capability? Is it a process? Is it a
> way of working? Yes, - all of the above and others.
>
>
>
> Like HR, finance, communications and many other things that
> organizations do, KM does work (asset management, sharing,
> collaboration…), has ways of doing it (manual, technological,
> social…), reasons for doing it (increased productivity,
> competitiveness, sustainability…), and resources to do it with
> (budgets, technology, knowledge…).
>
>
>
> The bottom line is that KM is a way of working that includes most
> everything that an organization does. Although not essential to
> immediate survival (as evidenced by the number of organizations that
> don’t do it), It enhances success when an organization does it
> well. Although KM may shift it’s ways of working as technology
> evolves, it will always have work to do.
>
>
>
> Al Simard
>
>


Howie Cohen
 

I current;y have a global SP farm +38K users.     Like anything else, you get out what you put in to it in terms of effort.  Bottom line is that without governance, planning, operational break / fix,  good community practices and most importantly engagement at all levels any technology will wind up being garbage.   

Howie

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Robert Bogue rbogue@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

Stephen –

 

I think that your characterization that SharePoint is the problem preventing upgrades is an unfair characterization.  I’ve seen clients in most CMSs which are stuck at previous versions.  This is, however, because of customizations not because of the platform.  It may happen that SharePoint tends to get customized more often and there should be a greater warning about customizations, but characterizing the platform as bad – rather than what people do to it – seems unfair.

 

I agree, if you don’t use Microsoft Office, many of SharePoint’s key benefits are nullified.  I further agree that “fixing” the SharePoint UI is a fool’s errand.  (My words)  However, I similarly disagree that recordskeeping is hard to implement in SharePoint.  The problem is in engaging the business to the understanding of what a record is – and how they should be managed.

 

Rob

 

-------------------

Robert L. Bogue

Find me Phone: (317) 844-5310  Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 10:22 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: ESN threatening KM function?

 

 

Hi Jamie,



First, a technical warning. SharePoint has historically been one of the
worst platforms to upgrade of any major CMS. Many organisations end up
stuck on an old version of SharePoint because their sites simply can't
be migrated to newer versions without incurring great cost. So bear that
in mind before you jump into a SP2013 install given that SP2016 has just
gone RTM.

SharePoint's key strength lies in its tight integration with Office. If
you don't use Office, I would never recommend SharePoint - without
Office, SharePoint is demonstrably worse than competing products in most
other ways. Its only real advantage is that it provides a wide range of
functionality at a mediocre level.

Also bear in mind that if you have recordkeeping obligations, SharePoint
is notoriously bad at applying effective records controls. You will
likely need a third-party backend or add-on solution if that's important
to you.

So my three big tips and tricks for integrating SharePoint would be:

1. Keep it simple. It is most likely that people are just going to use
SharePoint for document sharing, shared calendars, and shared tasks. If
you already have other tools for wikis and forum discussions, they are
likely better fit for purpose.

2. Only use out of the box functionality and commercial add-ons unless
you have a sizeable, realistic budget for development and ongoing
customisation of the platform: at least $500,000 up-front and $100,000
annually. Forget what your web/UX/UI guys may say about the interface --
SharePoint is SharePoint, don't try and fix it. If you are determined to
customize or use add-ons, see my warning about version upgrades above.

3. Your information architecture choices are critical, particularly for
content types and site/site collection/farm structure. With SharePoint,
the site structure sets your URL path by default. This means that every
time you want to change your navigation structure you will break
everyone's links to sites and documents. This is possible to decouple
but it's not simple -- see development budget warning.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

On 20/07/2016 6:23 AM, 'jamie.martino16@...'
jamie.martino16@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I am very much enjoying being a part of this thread, & group for that
> matter.
>
> Going back to the original question... 'ESN threatening KM function?' it
> seems that most companies begin using a SharePoint type of tool and then
> branch out to various ESNs. In my company, however, we are doing the
> opposite. We began 2 years ago with an LCMS that functions also as our
> KM platform, linking formal & informal content to competencies, CoPs,
> Wikis, Discussion Forums, Ask the Expert, etc.
>
> Now, as this is not a project management tool, nor an intranet, we'll be
> launching (in about 6-8 months) a SP 2013 intranet... adding on Yammer
> in late 2017. Presently, we are working on defining our strategy, in
> order to ensure the 2 platforms do not overlap in purpose (or at least
> confuse our Talents in purpose) and that we just do not add on tools
> blindedly. From this SIKM community, I would like to know if anyone has
> experience going in this direction, tips/ tricks on integrating SP into
> a living KM strategy (as I only know the basics of SP 2010 myself), etc.
>
> Your comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated.
>
> Best,
> Jamie Martino
>
> Group Learning & Knowledge Manager
> MCI Group
>
>
> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
>
>
>
> Is KM a function? Is it a capability? Is it a process? Is it a
> way of working? Yes, - all of the above and others.
>
>
>
> Like HR, finance, communications and many other things that
> organizations do, KM does work (asset management, sharing,
> collaboration…), has ways of doing it (manual, technological,
> social…), reasons for doing it (increased productivity,
> competitiveness, sustainability…), and resources to do it with
> (budgets, technology, knowledge…).
>
>
>
> The bottom line is that KM is a way of working that includes most
> everything that an organization does. Although not essential to
> immediate survival (as evidenced by the number of organizations that
> don’t do it), It enhances success when an organization does it
> well. Although KM may shift it’s ways of working as technology
> evolves, it will always have work to do.
>
>
>
> Al Simard
>
>



Albert Simard
 

A key problem that we ran into is that the IT group declared that “we” are a Microsoft shop and that no other software would be permitted.  Although the business units wanted a social network application that was known to be better than SP, that was simply not an option.  Then, between the quirky needs of science, the real need for security, and a legal need for two languages, SP had to be customized in order to work in our environment.  What made it worse is that the IT group viewed their responsibility as limited to installing an approved server and linking it to the corporate network.  The business units were responsible for making it work.  Needless to say, almost everything that you’ve heard about implementing Share Point is true!  And as for upgrades…  Sigh!