Topics

ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available #ISO-KM-Standard #strategy


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the website:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source:
ISO
Committee:
HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories:
Management. Human resources
Comment period start date:
23/11/2017
Comment period end date:
16/01/2018

Scope

This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================


Chris Collison
 

Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard. 

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.

 

Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures.  130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

 

My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests.  Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris

 

 

 

From: <sikmleaders@...> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List <actkm@...>, KM for Development <km4dev-l@...>, "sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the website:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source:
ISO
Committee:
HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories:
Management. Human resources
Comment period start date:
23/11/2017
Comment period end date:
16/01/2018

Scope

This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Chris,

Not sure if it was from you or somewhere else that I have seen the "product placement" critique before. I agree there are substantial flaws, but that wasn't an obvious one to me. What specifically did you have in mind?

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard. 

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.

 

Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures.  130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

 

My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests.  Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris

 

 

 

From: on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]"
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@..."
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List , KM for Development , "sikmleaders@..."
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the website:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source:
ISO
Committee:
HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories:
Management. Human resources
Comment period start date:
23/11/2017
Comment period end date:
16/01/2018

Scope

This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================



Stephen Bounds
 

To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:

Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management system" (as distinct from being knowledge management)?

The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
 

Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard. 

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.

 

Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures.  130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

 

My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests.  Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris

 

 

 

From: on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]"
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@..."
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List , KM for Development , "sikmleaders@..."
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the website:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source:
ISO
Committee:
HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories:
Management. Human resources
Comment period start date:
23/11/2017
Comment period end date:
16/01/2018

Scope

This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================



Nancy White
 

I have read it quickly, so take my response with the proffered grain of salt. I agree with Chris. I think there are some good bones here. But wow, a lot of stuff I think would actually create negative conditions for some orgs and companies! Particularly since many organizations find themselves operating in a mix of contexts, including complex and chaotic contexts which would not be well served by the prescriptive things Chris noted. 

Unlike Chris, I've made no comments because I am lazy, and I still feel knowledge management is a bit of an oxymoron and I find it tripping up with all the "adjacent' practices noted in the draft. I don't feel they are adjacent. I think they are all in a mixed up stew, making prescriptive standards even more questionable. I wonder what the field of "KM" would look like if we parsed it into a living Ecocycle? http://www.liberatingstructures.com/31-ecocycle-planning/ - which gives space for not only what needs to be mainstreamed, but what might need to be "creatively destroyed!" (yes, a little evil grin from me.)

Nancy



On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Chris Collison chris.collison@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard. 

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.

 

Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures.  130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

 

My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests.  Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris

 

 

 

From: <sikmleaders@...> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List <actkm@...>, KM for Development <km4dev-l@...>, "sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the website:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source:
ISO
Committee:
HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories:
Management. Human resources
Comment period start date:
23/11/2017
Comment period end date:
16/01/2018

Scope

This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================





Chris Collison
 

My product placement antennae had actually bristled a bit at the mention of a ‘Knowledge Management Asset Strategy”, and the suggestion that the organisation must have a “Knowledge Policy”.

 

Good challenge/Devil’s advocacy!  I was never a fan of the label or the concept of a knowledge management (management) system.  To me, KM isn’t quite enough like Quality management or Safety Management to merit the same treatment.

 

I’m also uncomfortable with the ‘separatist’ approach that is implied by a discretely measurable management system for KM. I’ve always been more integrationist in my approach, dipping into other disciplines and not worried about controlling the borders or building walls.  Some of the language and positioning in the BSI document struck me as a bit Trump/Brexitesque..  (OK, so now I’ve offended everyone!)

 

I think the subtlety of it being a KMS Standard will quickly be lost though, and this would become known as the KM Standard, and KM then becomes perceived (and packaged and sold) as a recipe rather than a set of ingredients.

 

…and I’d to be known as a chef rather than a fast-food vendor.

 

Cheers,

Chris

 

 

From: <sikmleaders@...> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:57
To: "sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:

Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management system" (as distinct from being knowledge management)?

The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard. 

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.

 

Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures.  130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

 

My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests.  Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris

 

 

 

From: <sikmleaders@...> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List <actkm@...>, KM for Development <km4dev-l@...>, "sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the website:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source:
ISO
Committee:
HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories:
Management. Human resources
Comment period start date:
23/11/2017
Comment period end date:
16/01/2018

Scope

This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

 


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Chris,

I agree with the "asset" nomenclature, I intend to suggest this is removed.

You probably shouldn't ever read ISO 50501 -- I haven't seen a word of text and I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of "standardising" innovation :)

Your point about KM being the de facto standard is well made, but it's unlikely to have much force in shaping outcomes without buy-in from the profession. The last attempt at a KM standard suffered from an entirely different range of problems, and never really found an audience either.

Nancy: Great point. I am very much of your view about KM being interwoven rather than distinct from the other disciplines as well.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

My product placement antennae had actually bristled a bit at the mention of a ‘Knowledge Management Asset Strategy”, and the suggestion that the organisation must have a “Knowledge Policy”.

 

Good challenge/Devil’s advocacy!  I was never a fan of the label or the concept of a knowledge management (management) system.  To me, KM isn’t quite enough like Quality management or Safety Management to merit the same treatment.

 

I’m also uncomfortable with the ‘separatist’ approach that is implied by a discretely measurable management system for KM. I’ve always been more integrationist in my approach, dipping into other disciplines and not worried about controlling the borders or building walls.  Some of the language and positioning in the BSI document struck me as a bit Trump/Brexitesque..  (OK, so now I’ve offended everyone!)

 

I think the subtlety of it being a KMS Standard will quickly be lost though, and this would become known as the KM Standard, and KM then becomes perceived (and packaged and sold) as a recipe rather than a set of ingredients.

 

…and I’d to be known as a chef rather than a fast-food vendor.

 

Cheers,

Chris

 

 

From: on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]"
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@..."
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:57
To: "sikmleaders@..."
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:

Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management system" (as distinct from being knowledge management)?

The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard. 

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.

 

Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures.  130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

 

My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests.  Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris

 

 

 

From: on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]"
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@..."
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List , KM for Development , "sikmleaders@..."
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the website:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source:
ISO
Committee:
HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories:
Management. Human resources
Comment period start date:
23/11/2017
Comment period end date:
16/01/2018

Scope

This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

 



Andrew Gent
 

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for bringing the draft standard to our attention. I hate to be rude, but it is dubious to call this a "public" draft when it can't be read without signing up. I certainly have no issue with requiring enrollment for commenting, but could the draft document be made available without constraint?

Thanks.

--Andrew Gent

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 6:56:37 PM EST, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]


 

Hi Chris,

I agree with the "asset" nomenclature, I intend to suggest this is removed.

You probably shouldn't ever read ISO 50501 -- I haven't seen a word of text and I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of "standardising" innovation :)

Your point about KM being the de facto standard is well made, but it's unlikely to have much force in shaping outcomes without buy-in from the profession. The last attempt at a KM standard suffered from an entirely different range of problems, and never really found an audience either.

Nancy: Great point. I am very much of your view about KM being interwoven rather than distinct from the other disciplines as well.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

My product placement antennae had actually bristled a bit at the mention of a ‘Knowledge Management Asset Strategy”, and the suggestion that the organisation must have a “Knowledge Policy”.

 

Good challenge/Devil’s advocacy!  I was never a fan of the label or the concept of a knowledge management (management) system.  To me, KM isn’t quite enough like Quality management or Safety Management to merit the same treatment.

 

I’m also uncomfortable with the ‘separatist’ approach that is implied by a discretely measurable management system for KM. I’ve always been more integrationist in my approach, dipping into other disciplines and not worried about controlling the borders or building walls.  Some of the language and positioning in the BSI document struck me as a bit Trump/Brexitesque..  (OK, so now I’ve offended everyone!)

 

I think the subtlety of it being a KMS Standard will quickly be lost though, and this would become known as the KM Standard, and KM then becomes perceived (and packaged and sold) as a recipe rather than a set of ingredients.

 

…and I’d to be known as a chef rather than a fast-food vendor.

 

Cheers,

Chris

 

 

From: on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]"
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@..."
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:57
To: "sikmleaders@..."
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:

Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management system" (as distinct from being knowledge management)?

The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard. 

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.

 

Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures.  130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

 

My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests.  Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris

 

 

 

From: on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@..."
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List , KM for Development , "sikmleaders@..." <sikmleaders@...>
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the website:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source:
ISO
Committee:
HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories:
Management. Human resources
Comment period start date:
23/11/2017
Comment period end date:
16/01/2018

Scope

This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

 



Patrick Lambe
 

Some good points here. I was present at the ISO meeting where the references to the importance of treating knowledge as an asset were (re)introduced (I think this has been in and out of the various drafts), and I supported it then. The thinking goes that if you treat organisational knowledge as an asset, then you can more meaningfully talk about conserving, stewarding, risk management, reuse, in managerial terms. It makes sense to create inventories, identify gaps and risks and so on. Since then I have somewhat moderated my views slightly in the sense that “asset” implies ownership and powers of disposition, and of course the organisation does not own all the forms of knowledge available to it (the skills and experience of its people for example). So I am now more comfortable with the term “resource”, but I think the general point remains that it was debated and included with a managerial rationale behind it (and is now available for public review). There is a good case to make for treating knowledge as a resource to be deliberately managed (among other perspectives). If you don’t agree with that, then make the case back (in the document) - that’s how stuff gets formalised in standards work - making cases, arguing it out, coming to a conclusion (or a form of words that the stakeholders can all live with, which is not necessarily the same thing).

The “policy” piece is actually inherited directly from the ISO Management Systems Standard template and is a non-negotiable from ISO - in fact the overall structure of the standard and the broad shape of its elements are inherited. The task of the working committees was to contextualise this to knowledge management. I happen to think that a knowledge (management) policy is a useful thing to have - a policy tells employees that is expected of them in relation to the treatment and management (sharing, protection, securing) of different forms of knowledge. It’s a communications device with some directive elements, and it assigns clear roles and responsibilities. A good policy creates clarity. For those of us who don’t like working in large organisations, policies may seem like constraints on “free” knowledge flows. For those who do work in large organisations, they are hedges against chaotic, unpredictable and ungoverned behaviours. The structure of the template can be found here. It will help discern which elements are simply there by ISO fiat, and which are products of the various committees’ work. https://www.iso.org/management-system-standards.html (PDF on right hand side of page)

I take the view that this is a management system standard around what a management system for knowledge management should look like. It by no means covers all the forms that knowledge management activity in an organisation can and should look like. But if you want to set up a management system for organisation-wide KM, the standard should help you frame that.

As far as integration of KM with other activities goes, the idea of a common management systems standard template across all the ISO management systems standards (Innovation, Information Security, Records Management, QM etc) is that there is consistency of approach and relatability of how management systems are defined, structured and related. I think this means that KM (as a management system) in fact becomes more capable of being connected into other management systems.

By the way this is not a BSI document, it is an ISO document, and is the product of the work of many of the ISO country committees, as well as the international working committee and the ISO HR management systems committees that sit above this. If you just look at it from the frame of BSI and the BSI KM committee's membership, some have leapt to assumptions (ranging from suspicious to borderline defamatory) about the mechanics of how the standard’s content got to its present shape. This is an international multi-country standard with a very specific process guided by a template and the ISO technical committees behind it. To suggest that it could be hijacked for commercial gain (as some have done) is a real stretch. Chris, I think you have taken a more nuanced approach, and I think you have valid concerns. I’m also concerned about the dangers of an audit-to-consult model.

I don’t think this is a perfect document. However we should also avoid the situation where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. KM is especially prone to the problems of “my theory/framework/approach is best”, without any clear authoritative frame of reference, not merely from consultants, but also from internal leaders - I had one colleague the other week who got a new CIO who decided to impose his new organising framework where KM was a sub-branch of data analytics. Everything this friend of mine had been doing around fostering sharing behaviours and transfer of critical knowledge, was suddenly about to evaporate because of the whim of somebody with a bee in his bonnet. This is why I support the idea of a KM standard.

What’s my interest in this? I am not a member of any of the ISO committees or country standards committees, although if Singapore had one, I would probably have signed up. I attended one of the later international meetings in Singapore as an observer and saw some of the workings and constraints, and was impressed by the degree of collegiality and common purpose, among a very diverse set of people, only a few of them KM consultants. As a consultant, I like the idea of an international standard, because it gives a common frame of reference so you can expect to speak a consistent language and work to shared expectations. I don’t feel threatened by it, nor do I think it excludes the more fluid and contextualised work we do. Some of it would align with our approaches, other bits of it would not. On balance I think it's sufficiently high level to accommodate a range of approaches.

It’s out there for public comment (Andrew, the BSI group is the most open form of the standard available for comment, other countries and ISO themselves expect you to buy the draft if you want to comment on it) as part of the ISO process, and within the constraints of the Management Systems Standard structure, I am sure that the country committees and the international committee will work through all the comments, good, constructive, insightful, bad, ugly, and insane that we can expect from a public document like this. Having seen just a fraction of the work that these good people have done I think armchair sniping is unwarranted and unfair. As Chris has done, roll your sleeves up and engage with it. Closing date on BSI is January 16th. Do take a look at the constraints imposed by the ISO template.

It’s quite possible that the standard will not be able to survive the public consultation. Countries can vote for it not to go forward. I think that would be a pity. Personally, I’d prefer to get it out there, however imperfect, and have it tested against real world organisations. Then, perhaps, our field might have a chance of making progress.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383




website: www.straitsknowledge.com
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 4 Jan 2018, at 7:55 AM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Hi Chris,

I agree with the "asset" nomenclature, I intend to suggest this is removed.

You probably shouldn't ever read ISO 50501 -- I haven't seen a word of text and I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of "standardising" innovation :)

Your point about KM being the de facto standard is well made, but it's unlikely to have much force in shaping outcomes without buy-in from the profession. The last attempt at a KM standard suffered from an entirely different range of problems, and never really found an audience either.

Nancy: Great point. I am very much of your view about KM being interwoven rather than distinct from the other disciplines as well.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com <mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:


My product placement antennae had actually bristled a bit at the mention of a ‘Knowledge Management Asset Strategy”, and the suggestion that the organisation must have a “Knowledge Policy”.



Good challenge/Devil’s advocacy! I was never a fan of the label or the concept of a knowledge management (management) system. To me, KM isn’t quite enough like Quality management or Safety Management to merit the same treatment.



I’m also uncomfortable with the ‘separatist’ approach that is implied by a discretely measurable management system for KM. I’ve always been more integrationist in my approach, dipping into other disciplines and not worried about controlling the borders or building walls. Some of the language and positioning in the BSI document struck me as a bit Trump/Brexitesque.. (OK, so now I’ve offended everyone!)



I think the subtlety of it being a KMS Standard will quickly be lost though, and this would become known as the KM Standard, and KM then becomes perceived (and packaged and sold) as a recipe rather than a set of ingredients.



…and I’d to be known as a chef rather than a fast-food vendor.



Cheers,

Chris





From: <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au <mailto:km@bounds.net.au>[sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:57
To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available





To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:

Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management system" (as distinct from being knowledge management)?

The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com <mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:



Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard.

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.



Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures. 130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.



My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests. Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris







From: <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au <mailto:km@bounds.net.au>[sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List <actkm@actkm.org> <mailto:actkm@actkm.org>, KM for Development <km4dev-l@dgroups.org> <mailto:km4dev-l@dgroups.org>,"sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available





Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the website <https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421>:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source: ISO
Committee: HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories: Management. Human resources
Comment period start date: 23/11/2017
Comment period end date: 16/01/2018

Scope
This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site <https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421> with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================




Nancy White
 

Thanks for the context, Patrick!

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Some good points here. I was present at the ISO meeting where the references to the importance of treating knowledge as an asset were (re)introduced (I think this has been in and out of the various drafts), and I supported it then. The thinking goes that if you treat organisational knowledge as an asset, then you can more meaningfully talk about conserving, stewarding, risk management, reuse, in managerial terms. It makes sense to create inventories, identify gaps and risks and so on. Since then I have somewhat moderated my views slightly in the sense that “asset” implies ownership and powers of disposition, and of course the organisation does not own all the forms of knowledge available to it (the skills and experience of its people for example). So I am now more comfortable with the term “resource”, but I think the general point remains that it was debated and included with a managerial rationale behind it (and is now available for public review). There is a good case to make for treating knowledge as a resource to be deliberately managed (among other perspectives). If you don’t agree with that, then make the case back (in the document) - that’s how stuff gets formalised in standards work - making cases, arguing it out, coming to a conclusion (or a form of words that the stakeholders can all live with, which is not necessarily the same thing).

The “policy” piece is actually inherited directly from the ISO Management Systems Standard template and is a non-negotiable from ISO - in fact the overall structure of the standard and the broad shape of its elements are inherited. The task of the working committees was to contextualise this to knowledge management. I happen to think that a knowledge (management) policy is a useful thing to have - a policy tells employees that is expected of them in relation to the treatment and management (sharing, protection, securing) of different forms of knowledge. It’s a communications device with some directive elements, and it assigns clear roles and responsibilities. A good policy creates clarity. For those of us who don’t like working in large organisations, policies may seem like constraints on “free” knowledge flows. For those who do work in large organisations, they are hedges against chaotic, unpredictable and ungoverned behaviours. The structure of the template can be found here. It will help discern which elements are simply there by ISO fiat, and which are products of the various committees’ work. https://www.iso.org/management-system-standards.html (PDF on right hand side of page) 

I take the view that this is a management system standard around what a management system for knowledge management should look like. It by no means covers all the forms that knowledge management activity in an organisation can and should look like. But if you want to set up a management system for organisation-wide KM, the standard should help you frame that.

As far as integration of KM with other activities goes, the idea of a common management systems standard template across all the ISO management systems standards (Innovation, Information Security, Records Management, QM etc) is that there is consistency of approach and relatability of how management systems are defined, structured and related. I think this means that KM (as a management system) in fact becomes more capable of being connected into other management systems.

By the way this is not a BSI document, it is an ISO document, and is the product of the work of many of the ISO country committees, as well as the international working committee and the ISO HR management systems committees that sit above this. If you just look at it from the frame of BSI and the BSI KM committee's membership, some have leapt to assumptions (ranging from suspicious to borderline defamatory) about the mechanics of how the standard’s content got to its present shape. This is an international multi-country standard with a very specific process guided by a template and the ISO technical committees behind it. To suggest that it could be hijacked for commercial gain (as some have done) is a real stretch.. Chris, I think you have taken a more nuanced approach, and I think you have valid concerns. I’m also concerned about the dangers of an audit-to-consult model. 

I don’t think this is a perfect document. However we should also avoid the situation where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. KM is especially prone to the problems of “my theory/framework/approach is best”, without any clear authoritative frame of reference, not merely from consultants, but also from internal leaders - I had one colleague the other week who got a new CIO who decided to impose his new organising framework where KM was a sub-branch of data analytics. Everything this friend of mine had been doing around fostering sharing behaviours and transfer of critical knowledge, was suddenly about to evaporate because of the whim of somebody with a bee in his bonnet. This is why I support the idea of a KM standard. 

What’s my interest in this? I am not a member of any of the ISO committees or country standards committees, although if Singapore had one, I would probably have signed up. I attended one of the later international meetings in Singapore as an observer and saw some of the workings and constraints, and was impressed by the degree of collegiality and common purpose, among a very diverse set of people, only a few of them KM consultants. As a consultant, I like the idea of an international standard, because it gives a common frame of reference so you can expect to speak a consistent language and work to shared expectations. I don’t feel threatened by it, nor do I think it excludes the more fluid and contextualised work we do. Some of it would align with our approaches, other bits of it would not. On balance I think it's sufficiently high level to accommodate a range of approaches.

It’s out there for public comment (Andrew, the BSI group is the most open form of the standard available for comment, other countries and ISO themselves expect you to buy the draft if you want to comment on it) as part of the ISO process, and within the constraints of the Management Systems Standard structure, I am sure that the country committees and the international committee will work through all the comments, good, constructive, insightful, bad, ugly, and insane that we can expect from a public document like this. Having seen just a fraction of the work that these good people have done I think armchair sniping is unwarranted and unfair. As Chris has done, roll your sleeves up and engage with it. Closing date on BSI is January 16th. Do take a look at the constraints imposed by the ISO template.

It’s quite possible that the standard will not be able to survive the public consultation. Countries can vote for it not to go forward. I think that would be a pity. Personally, I’d prefer to get it out there, however imperfect, and have it tested against real world organisations. Then, perhaps, our field might have a chance of making progress. 

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 4 Jan 2018, at 7:55 AM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Hi Chris,

I agree with the "asset" nomenclature, I intend to suggest this is removed.

You probably shouldn't ever read ISO 50501 -- I haven't seen a word of text and I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of "standardising" innovation :)

Your point about KM being the de facto standard is well made, but it's unlikely to have much force in shaping outcomes without buy-in from the profession. The last attempt at a KM standard suffered from an entirely different range of problems, and never really found an audience either.

Nancy: Great point. I am very much of your view about KM being interwoven rather than distinct from the other disciplines as well.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com [sikmleaders] wrote:
 

My product placement antennae had actually bristled a bit at the mention of a ‘Knowledge Management Asset Strategy”, and the suggestion that the organisation must have a “Knowledge Policy”. 

 

Good challenge/Devil’s advocacy!  I was never a fan of the label or the concept of a knowledge management (management) system.  To me, KM isn’t quite enough like Quality management or Safety Management to merit the same treatment.

 

I’m also uncomfortable with the ‘separatist’ approach that is implied by a discretely measurable management system for KM. I’ve always been more integrationist in my approach, dipping into other disciplines and not worried about controlling the borders or building walls.  Some of the language and positioning in the BSI document struck me as a bit Trump/Brexitesque..  (OK, so now I’ve offended everyone!)

 

I think the subtlety of it being a KMS Standard will quickly be lost though, and this would become known as the KM Standard, and KM then becomes perceived (and packaged and sold) as a recipe rather than a set of ingredients.

 

…and I’d to be known as a chef rather than a fast-food vendor.

 

Cheers,

Chris

 

 

From: yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@...[sikmleaders]" yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:57
To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" com>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

  

To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:

Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management system" (as distinct from being knowledge management)?

The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all.. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com [sikmleaders] wrote:

  

Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard.  

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic. 

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.

 

Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures.  130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

 

My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests.  Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris

 

 

 

From: yahoogroups..com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@...[sikmleaders]" yahoogroups.com>


Reply-To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List , KM for Development org>,"sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" com>
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

  

Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the website:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source: 
ISO
Committee: 
HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories: 
Management. Human resources
Comment period start date: 
23/11/2017
Comment period end date: 
16/01/2018

Scope

This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen. 

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

 








Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Patrick,

I agree with the majority of your sentiments. I do recognise that there has been a substantial amount of effort put into this document, and it is important to avoid shooting the messenger.

Like you, I am sympathetic to the need for a formal knowledge management system structure. I will be suggesting that the language needs to more clearly distinguish the governance component of the management system from the KM discipline itself. Also, despite saying the standard "applicable to all", it is clear that much as ISO 9001 is overkill for some organisations, ISO 30401 won't be necessary for every organization. I am very comfortable with all of that.

You raise the important question of stability for KM programs, and their tendency to be wiped out in organisational reshuffles. A KMS is likely to prevent this; /however/, what it won't do is clarify the total scope of KM. People tend to assume that their first exposure to "KM" is what the discipline is, whereas it is almost certainly only a very small component of what KM is capable of.

The risk is that we'll end up with ISO 30401-compliant implementations which are only a pale shadow of the full range of opportunities available through KM. Is this a problem? I'm not sure.

I do think that we need to work out how to better communicate what KM is interested in doing, though. To that end, I've recently finished a first edition of an Open KM Syllabus <http://realkm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Open-KM-Syllabus-2018-edition-Themes-and-Topics.pdf> which attempts to comprehensively describe themes and topics that I would want to teach anyone wanting to be competent in all aspects of KM.

Whether a normative theme and topic list like this belongs in a standard such as ISO 30401 is another matter -- I have certainly not come to a firm view on this.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 1:28 PM, Patrick Lambe plambe@greenchameleon.com [sikmleaders] wrote:

Some good points here. I was present at the ISO meeting where the references to the importance of treating knowledge as an asset were (re)introduced (I think this has been in and out of the various drafts), and I supported it then. The thinking goes that if you treat organisational knowledge as an asset, then you can more meaningfully talk about conserving, stewarding, risk management, reuse, in managerial terms. It makes sense to create inventories, identify gaps and risks and so on. Since then I have somewhat moderated my views slightly in the sense that “asset” implies ownership and powers of disposition, and of course the organisation does not own all the forms of knowledge available to it (the skills and experience of its people for example). There is a good case to make for treating knowledge as a resource to be deliberately managed (among other perspectives). If you don’t agree with that, then make the case back (in the document) - that’s how stuff gets formalised in standards work - making cases, arguing it out, coming to a conclusion (or a form of words that the stakeholders can all live with, which is not necessarily the same thing).


The “policy” piece is actually inherited directly from the ISO Management Systems Standard template and is a non-negotiable from ISO - in fact the overall structure of the standard and the broad shape of its elements are inherited. The task of the working committees was to contextualise this to knowledge management. I happen to think that a knowledge (management) policy is a useful thing to have - a policy tells employees that is expected of them in relation to the treatment and management (sharing, protection, securing) of different forms of knowledge. It’s a communications device with some directive elements, and it assigns clear roles and responsibilities. A good policy creates clarity. For those of us who don’t like working in large organisations, policies may seem like constraints on “free” knowledge flows. For those who do work in large organisations, they are hedges against chaotic, unpredictable and ungoverned behaviours. The structure of the template can be found here. It will help discern which elements are simply there by ISO fiat, and which are products of the various committees’ work. https://www.iso.org/management-system-standards.html (PDF on right hand side of page)

I take the view that this is a management system standard around what a management system for knowledge management should look like. It by no means covers all the forms that knowledge management activity in an organisation can and should look like. But if you want to set up a *management system* for organisation-wide KM, the standard should help you frame that.

As far as integration of KM with other activities goes, the idea of a common management systems standard template across all the ISO management systems standards (Innovation, Information Security, Records Management, QM etc) is that there is consistency of approach and relatability of how management systems are defined, structured and related. I think this means that KM (as a management system) in fact becomes more capable of being connected into other management systems.

By the way this is not a BSI document, it is an ISO document, and is the product of the work of many of the ISO country committees, as well as the international working committee and the ISO HR management systems committees that sit above this. If you just look at it from the frame of BSI and the BSI KM committee's membership, some have leapt to assumptions (ranging from suspicious to borderline defamatory) about the mechanics of how the standard’s content got to its present shape. This is an international multi-country standard with a very specific process guided by a template and the ISO technical committees behind it. To suggest that it could be hijacked for commercial gain (as some have done) is a real stretch. Chris, I think you have taken a more nuanced approach, and I think you have valid concerns. I’m also concerned about the dangers of an audit-to-consult model.

I don’t think this is a perfect document. However we should also avoid the situation where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. KM is especially prone to the problems of “my theory/framework/approach is best”, without any clear authoritative frame of reference, not merely from consultants, but also from internal leaders - I had one colleague the other week who got a new CIO who decided to impose his new organising framework where KM was a sub-branch of data analytics. Everything this friend of mine had been doing around fostering sharing behaviours and transfer of critical knowledge, was suddenly about to evaporate because of the whim of somebody with a bee in his bonnet. This is why I support the idea of a KM standard.

What’s my interest in this? I am not a member of any of the ISO committees or country standards committees, although if Singapore had one, I would probably have signed up. I attended one of the later international meetings in Singapore as an observer and saw some of the workings and constraints, and was impressed by the degree of collegiality and common purpose, among a very diverse set of people, only a few of them KM consultants. As a consultant, I like the idea of an international standard, because it gives a common frame of reference so you can expect to speak a consistent language and work to shared expectations. I don’t feel threatened by it, nor do I think it excludes the more fluid and contextualised work we do. Some of it would align with our approaches, other bits of it would not. On balance I think it's sufficiently high level to accommodate a range of approaches.

It’s out there for public comment (Andrew, the BSI group is the most open form of the standard available for comment, other countries and ISO themselves expect you to buy the draft if you want to comment on it) as part of the ISO process, and within the constraints of the Management Systems Standard structure, I am sure that the country committees and the international committee will work through all the comments, good, constructive, insightful, bad, ugly, and insane that we can expect from a public document like this. Having seen just a fraction of the work that these good people have done I think armchair sniping is unwarranted and unfair. As Chris has done, roll your sleeves up and engage with it. Closing date on BSI is January 16th. Do take a look at the constraints imposed by the ISO template.

It’s quite possible that the standard will not be able to survive the public consultation. Countries can vote for it not to go forward. I think that would be a pity. Personally, I’d prefer to get it out there, however imperfect, and have it tested against real world organisations. Then, perhaps, our field might have a chance of making progress.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



website: www..straitsknowledge.com <http://www.straitsknowledge.com>
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com <http://www.greenchameleon.com>
twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com <http://www.aithinsoftware.com>

On 4 Jan 2018, at 7:55 AM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:


Hi Chris,

I agree with the "asset" nomenclature, I intend to suggest this is removed.

You probably shouldn't ever read ISO 50501 -- I haven't seen a word of text and I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of "standardising" innovation :)

Your point about KM being the de facto standard is well made, but it's unlikely to have much force in shaping outcomes without buy-in from the profession. The last attempt at a KM standard suffered from an entirely different range of problems, and never really found an audience either.

Nancy: Great point. I am very much of your view about KM being interwoven rather than distinct from the other disciplines as well.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Collisonchris.collison@outlook.com[sikmleaders] wrote:

My product placement antennae had actually bristled a bit at the mention of a ‘Knowledge Management Asset Strategy”, and the suggestion that the organisation must have a “Knowledge Policy”.

Good challenge/Devil’s advocacy!  I was never a fan of the label or the concept of a knowledge management (management) system.  To me, KM isn’t quite enough like Quality management or Safety Management to merit the same treatment.

I’m also uncomfortable with the ‘separatist’ approach that is implied by a discretely measurable management system for KM. I’ve always been more integrationist in my approach, dipping into other disciplines and not worried about controlling the borders or building walls.  Some of the language and positioning in the BSI document struck me as a bit Trump/Brexitesque.. /(OK, so now I’ve offended everyone!)/

I think the subtlety of it being a KMS Standard will quickly be lost though, and this would become known as the KM Standard, and KM then becomes perceived (and packaged and sold) as a recipe rather than a set of ingredients..

…and I’d to be known as a chef rather than a fast-food vendor.

Cheers,

Chris

*From:*<sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>on behalf of "Stephen Boundskm@bounds.net.au[sikmleaders]"<sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
*Reply-To:*"sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"<sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
*Date:*Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:57
*To:*"sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"<sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
*Subject:*Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:

Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a
partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral
experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than
foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management/system/" (as distinct from being/knowledge management/)?

The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collisonchris.collison@outlook.com <mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com>[sikmleaders] wrote:

Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions
as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought -
but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a
fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining
‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard.

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent,
and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings
makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious
process, but it’s important that we engage.

Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed
programme with policies, roles and measures.  130 clients on, my
experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the
state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually
and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and
functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a
partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral
experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than
foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more
generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested
interests.  Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt
which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris

*From:*<sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>on behalf of "Stephen
Boundskm@bounds.net.au
<mailto:km@bounds.net.au>[sikmleaders]"<sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
*Reply-To:*"sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
*Date:*Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
*To:*ActKM Discussion List<actkm@actkm.org>
<mailto:actkm@actkm.org>, KM for
Development<km4dev-l@dgroups.org>
<mailto:km4dev-l@dgroups.org>,"sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
*Subject:*[sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management
systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From thewebsite
<https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421>:

*BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source:*ISO*
Committee:*HCS/1 - Human Capital*
Categories:*Management. Human resources*
Comment period start date:*23/11/2017*
Comment period end date:*16/01/2018*

Scope*
This international standard sets requirements and provide
guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining,
reviewing and improving an effective management system for
knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements
of this international standard are applicable to any
organization, regardless of its type or size, or the
products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering
on theBSI site
<https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421>with
a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

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

Stephen Bounds

Executive, Information Management

Cordelta

E:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>

M: 0401 829 096

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


Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Stephen

The risk is that we'll end up with ISO 30401-compliant implementations which are only a pale shadow of the full range of opportunities available through KM. Is this a problem? I'm not sure.
This is almost certain. And to add on to that it’s not at all clear to me that ISO auditors/certifiers will (at least at the beginning) understand how to audit KM practices/processes effectively. That’s just the cost of an ISO system - I don’t believe KM consultants should both audit and consult, at least to the same clients. That’s where there would be a clear conflict of interest at play. No matter the care taken in the drafting the standard (and I believe there was a lot of care) it will be quite possible for somebody to look good on paper without a great deal of substance behind it. But how is this any different from where we are now?

This is just the insufficiency of any “thin” standards-based approach (or maturity framework, or awards framework, for that matter).

Conversely, good people will be able to use the standard as a framework for good work (as they always do) - just that they won’t have to go through the stupid labour of having to argue from the foundations up.

In and of itself, an effective standard in KM will provide only a framework for action. It can be utilised well or badly. Notwithstanding the inevitable mis-uses or poor uses, I still believe it would put us in a better place than we are now: fractious, quarrelsome, with competing perspectives and agendas, and a thirst for personal freedom that makes us poor at collegiality and collective action. Not to be able to put a standard together after a generation of work would be a poor reflection on us.

Now if it turned out that the standard had mostly negative effects and actively inhibited good work being done and good outcomes, I’d think differently. The way the current standard is framed, I don’t see such universally toxic outcomes. I can see it being misused, and I can see it having benefits, and I believe the balance is more positive than negative.

Standards can be threatening if one feels one has a unique solution and wants to differentiate it as such. But then everybody is just jostling for attention all the time. Standards can be helpful if they do succeed in forming a common frame of reference for people not merely to help them place and stabilise their implementations of KM, but also collaborate more widely around KM.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383




website: www.straitsknowledge.com
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 4 Jan 2018, at 1:22 PM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Hi Patrick,

I agree with the majority of your sentiments. I do recognise that there has been a substantial amount of effort put into this document, and it is important to avoid shooting the messenger.

Like you, I am sympathetic to the need for a formal knowledge management system structure. I will be suggesting that the language needs to more clearly distinguish the governance component of the management system from the KM discipline itself. Also, despite saying the standard "applicable to all", it is clear that much as ISO 9001 is overkill for some organisations, ISO 30401 won't be necessary for every organization. I am very comfortable with all of that.

You raise the important question of stability for KM programs, and their tendency to be wiped out in organisational reshuffles. A KMS is likely to prevent this; however, what it won't do is clarify the total scope of KM. People tend to assume that their first exposure to "KM" is what the discipline is, whereas it is almost certainly only a very small component of what KM is capable of.

The risk is that we'll end up with ISO 30401-compliant implementations which are only a pale shadow of the full range of opportunities available through KM. Is this a problem? I'm not sure.

I do think that we need to work out how to better communicate what KM is interested in doing, though. To that end, I've recently finished a first edition of an Open KM Syllabus <http://realkm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Open-KM-Syllabus-2018-edition-Themes-and-Topics.pdf> which attempts to comprehensively describe themes and topics that I would want to teach anyone wanting to be competent in all aspects of KM.

Whether a normative theme and topic list like this belongs in a standard such as ISO 30401 is another matter -- I have certainly not come to a firm view on this.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2018 1:28 PM, Patrick Lambe plambe@greenchameleon.com <mailto:plambe@greenchameleon.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:

Some good points here. I was present at the ISO meeting where the references to the importance of treating knowledge as an asset were (re)introduced (I think this has been in and out of the various drafts), and I supported it then. The thinking goes that if you treat organisational knowledge as an asset, then you can more meaningfully talk about conserving, stewarding, risk management, reuse, in managerial terms. It makes sense to create inventories, identify gaps and risks and so on. Since then I have somewhat moderated my views slightly in the sense that “asset” implies ownership and powers of disposition, and of course the organisation does not own all the forms of knowledge available to it (the skills and experience of its people for example). There is a good case to make for treating knowledge as a resource to be deliberately managed (among other perspectives). If you don’t agree with that, then make the case back (in the document) - that’s how stuff gets formalised in standards work - making cases, arguing it out, coming to a conclusion (or a form of words that the stakeholders can all live with, which is not necessarily the same thing).


The “policy” piece is actually inherited directly from the ISO Management Systems Standard template and is a non-negotiable from ISO - in fact the overall structure of the standard and the broad shape of its elements are inherited. The task of the working committees was to contextualise this to knowledge management. I happen to think that a knowledge (management) policy is a useful thing to have - a policy tells employees that is expected of them in relation to the treatment and management (sharing, protection, securing) of different forms of knowledge. It’s a communications device with some directive elements, and it assigns clear roles and responsibilities. A good policy creates clarity. For those of us who don’t like working in large organisations, policies may seem like constraints on “free” knowledge flows. For those who do work in large organisations, they are hedges against chaotic, unpredictable and ungoverned behaviours. The structure of the template can be found here. It will help discern which elements are simply there by ISO fiat, and which are products of the various committees’ work. https://www.iso.org/management-system-standards.html (PDF on right hand side of page)

I take the view that this is a management system standard around what a management system for knowledge management should look like. It by no means covers all the forms that knowledge management activity in an organisation can and should look like. But if you want to set up a management system for organisation-wide KM, the standard should help you frame that.

As far as integration of KM with other activities goes, the idea of a common management systems standard template across all the ISO management systems standards (Innovation, Information Security, Records Management, QM etc) is that there is consistency of approach and relatability of how management systems are defined, structured and related. I think this means that KM (as a management system) in fact becomes more capable of being connected into other management systems.

By the way this is not a BSI document, it is an ISO document, and is the product of the work of many of the ISO country committees, as well as the international working committee and the ISO HR management systems committees that sit above this. If you just look at it from the frame of BSI and the BSI KM committee's membership, some have leapt to assumptions (ranging from suspicious to borderline defamatory) about the mechanics of how the standard’s content got to its present shape. This is an international multi-country standard with a very specific process guided by a template and the ISO technical committees behind it. To suggest that it could be hijacked for commercial gain (as some have done) is a real stretch. Chris, I think you have taken a more nuanced approach, and I think you have valid concerns. I’m also concerned about the dangers of an audit-to-consult model.

I don’t think this is a perfect document. However we should also avoid the situation where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. KM is especially prone to the problems of “my theory/framework/approach is best”, without any clear authoritative frame of reference, not merely from consultants, but also from internal leaders - I had one colleague the other week who got a new CIO who decided to impose his new organising framework where KM was a sub-branch of data analytics. Everything this friend of mine had been doing around fostering sharing behaviours and transfer of critical knowledge, was suddenly about to evaporate because of the whim of somebody with a bee in his bonnet. This is why I support the idea of a KM standard.

What’s my interest in this? I am not a member of any of the ISO committees or country standards committees, although if Singapore had one, I would probably have signed up. I attended one of the later international meetings in Singapore as an observer and saw some of the workings and constraints, and was impressed by the degree of collegiality and common purpose, among a very diverse set of people, only a few of them KM consultants. As a consultant, I like the idea of an international standard, because it gives a common frame of reference so you can expect to speak a consistent language and work to shared expectations. I don’t feel threatened by it, nor do I think it excludes the more fluid and contextualised work we do. Some of it would align with our approaches, other bits of it would not. On balance I think it's sufficiently high level to accommodate a range of approaches.

It’s out there for public comment (Andrew, the BSI group is the most open form of the standard available for comment, other countries and ISO themselves expect you to buy the draft if you want to comment on it) as part of the ISO process, and within the constraints of the Management Systems Standard structure, I am sure that the country committees and the international committee will work through all the comments, good, constructive, insightful, bad, ugly, and insane that we can expect from a public document like this. Having seen just a fraction of the work that these good people have done I think armchair sniping is unwarranted and unfair. As Chris has done, roll your sleeves up and engage with it. Closing date on BSI is January 16th. Do take a look at the constraints imposed by the ISO template.

It’s quite possible that the standard will not be able to survive the public consultation. Countries can vote for it not to go forward. I think that would be a pity. Personally, I’d prefer to get it out there, however imperfect, and have it tested against real world organisations. Then, perhaps, our field might have a chance of making progress.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>


website: www..straitsknowledge.com <http://www.straitsknowledge.com/>
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com <http://www.greenchameleon.com/>
twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com <http://www.aithinsoftware.com/>
On 4 Jan 2018, at 7:55 AM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:


Hi Chris,

I agree with the "asset" nomenclature, I intend to suggest this is removed.

You probably shouldn't ever read ISO 50501 -- I haven't seen a word of text and I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of "standardising" innovation :)

Your point about KM being the de facto standard is well made, but it's unlikely to have much force in shaping outcomes without buy-in from the profession. The last attempt at a KM standard suffered from an entirely different range of problems, and never really found an audience either.

Nancy: Great point. I am very much of your view about KM being interwoven rather than distinct from the other disciplines as well.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com <mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:


My product placement antennae had actually bristled a bit at the mention of a ‘Knowledge Management Asset Strategy”, and the suggestion that the organisation must have a “Knowledge Policy”.



Good challenge/Devil’s advocacy! I was never a fan of the label or the concept of a knowledge management (management) system. To me, KM isn’t quite enough like Quality management or Safety Management to merit the same treatment.



I’m also uncomfortable with the ‘separatist’ approach that is implied by a discretely measurable management system for KM. I’ve always been more integrationist in my approach, dipping into other disciplines and not worried about controlling the borders or building walls. Some of the language and positioning in the BSI document struck me as a bit Trump/Brexitesque.. (OK, so now I’ve offended everyone!)



I think the subtlety of it being a KMS Standard will quickly be lost though, and this would become known as the KM Standard, and KM then becomes perceived (and packaged and sold) as a recipe rather than a set of ingredients..



…and I’d to be known as a chef rather than a fast-food vendor.



Cheers,

Chris





From: <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au <mailto:km@bounds.net.au>[sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:57
To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available





To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:

Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management system" (as distinct from being knowledge management)?

The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com <mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:



Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard.

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.



Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures. 130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.



My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests. Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris







From: <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au <mailto:km@bounds.net.au>[sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List <actkm@actkm.org> <mailto:actkm@actkm.org>, KM for Development <km4dev-l@dgroups.org> <mailto:km4dev-l@dgroups.org>,"sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available





Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the website <https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421>:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source: ISO
Committee: HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories: Management. Human resources
Comment period start date: 23/11/2017
Comment period end date: 16/01/2018

Scope
This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site <https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421> with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================




Arthur Shelley
 

The KM Standard will benefit from such conversations and diversity of perspectives. I agree with Patrick that there will be a range of high end application and poor implementation of the Standard, just as there was with ISO9000. This will settle in time, with those doing it for ”image” (appearing to be better than they actually are) losing out and those who use it as a solid framework for a good strategic KM plan generating benefits.



Intent and trust are important elements to progressing well and we (the knowledge community and those we serve/advise/lead) will inevitably go through a storming period. The key point – relevant to EVERY worthwhile KM initiative - is we are starting. This one step alone is worthwhile and will lead those with positive intent to better places.



Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne <http://www.creativemelbourne.com.au/>

Author: KNOW <http://www.businessexpertpress.com/books/knowledge-succession-sustained-capability-growth-through-strategic-projects> ledge SUCCESSion Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

Earlier Books: The Organizational Zoo (2007) & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader (2009)

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au <http://www.intelligentanswers.com.au/>

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/ambassadors/>

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>

<http://www.creativemelbourne.com.au/cm18/>



From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, 4 January 2018 4:51 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available





Hi Stephen



The risk is that we'll end up with ISO 30401-compliant implementations which are only a pale shadow of the full range of opportunities available through KM. Is this a problem? I'm not sure.

This is almost certain. And to add on to that it’s not at all clear to me that ISO auditors/certifiers will (at least at the beginning) understand how to audit KM practices/processes effectively. That’s just the cost of an ISO system - I don’t believe KM consultants should both audit and consult, at least to the same clients. That’s where there would be a clear conflict of interest at play. No matter the care taken in the drafting the standard (and I believe there was a lot of care) it will be quite possible for somebody to look good on paper without a great deal of substance behind it. But how is this any different from where we are now?



This is just the insufficiency of any “thin” standards-based approach (or maturity framework, or awards framework, for that matter).



Conversely, good people will be able to use the standard as a framework for good work (as they always do) - just that they won’t have to go through the stupid labour of having to argue from the foundations up.



In and of itself, an effective standard in KM will provide only a framework for action. It can be utilised well or badly. Notwithstanding the inevitable mis-uses or poor uses, I still believe it would put us in a better place than we are now: fractious, quarrelsome, with competing perspectives and agendas, and a thirst for personal freedom that makes us poor at collegiality and collective action. Not to be able to put a standard together after a generation of work would be a poor reflection on us.



Now if it turned out that the standard had mostly negative effects and actively inhibited good work being done and good outcomes, I’d think differently. The way the current standard is framed, I don’t see such universally toxic outcomes. I can see it being misused, and I can see it having benefits, and I believe the balance is more positive than negative.



Standards can be threatening if one feels one has a unique solution and wants to differentiate it as such. But then everybody is just jostling for attention all the time. Standards can be helpful if they do succeed in forming a common frame of reference for people not merely to help them place and stabilise their implementations of KM, but also collaborate more widely around KM.



P



Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383









website: www.straitsknowledge.com <http://www.straitsknowledge.com>

weblog: www.greenchameleon.com <http://www.greenchameleon.com>

twitter: @plambesg





Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com <http://www.aithinsoftware.com>



On 4 Jan 2018, at 1:22 PM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:





Hi Patrick,

I agree with the majority of your sentiments. I do recognise that there has been a substantial amount of effort put into this document, and it is important to avoid shooting the messenger..

Like you, I am sympathetic to the need for a formal knowledge management system structure. I will be suggesting that the language needs to more clearly distinguish the governance component of the management system from the KM discipline itself. Also, despite saying the standard "applicable to all", it is clear that much as ISO 9001 is overkill for some organisations, ISO 30401 won't be necessary for every organization. I am very comfortable with all of that.

You raise the important question of stability for KM programs, and their tendency to be wiped out in organisational reshuffles. A KMS is likely to prevent this; however, what it won't do is clarify the total scope of KM. People tend to assume that their first exposure to "KM" is what the discipline is, whereas it is almost certainly only a very small component of what KM is capable of.

The risk is that we'll end up with ISO 30401-compliant implementations which are only a pale shadow of the full range of opportunities available through KM. Is this a problem? I'm not sure.

I do think that we need to work out how to better communicate what KM is interested in doing, though. To that end, I've recently finished a first edition of an <http://realkm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Open-KM-Syllabus-2018-edition-Themes-and-Topics.pdf> Open KM Syllabus which attempts to comprehensively describe themes and topics that I would want to teach anyone wanting to be competent in all aspects of KM.

Whether a normative theme and topic list like this belongs in a standard such as ISO 30401 is another matter -- I have certainly not come to a firm view on this.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 1:28 PM, Patrick Lambe plambe@greenchameleon.com <mailto:plambe@greenchameleon.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:



Some good points here. I was present at the ISO meeting where the references to the importance of treating knowledge as an asset were (re)introduced (I think this has been in and out of the various drafts), and I supported it then. The thinking goes that if you treat organisational knowledge as an asset, then you can more meaningfully talk about conserving, stewarding, risk management, reuse, in managerial terms. It makes sense to create inventories, identify gaps and risks and so on. Since then I have somewhat moderated my views slightly in the sense that “asset” implies ownership and powers of disposition, and of course the organisation does not own all the forms of knowledge available to it (the skills and experience of its people for example). There is a good case to make for treating knowledge as a resource to be deliberately managed (among other perspectives). If you don’t agree with that, then make the case back (in the document) - that’s how stuff gets formalised in standards work - making cases, arguing it out, coming to a conclusion (or a form of words that the stakeholders can all live with, which is not necessarily the same thing).



The “policy” piece is actually inherited directly from the ISO Management Systems Standard template and is a non-negotiable from ISO - in fact the overall structure of the standard and the broad shape of its elements are inherited. The task of the working committees was to contextualise this to knowledge management. I happen to think that a knowledge (management) policy is a useful thing to have - a policy tells employees that is expected of them in relation to the treatment and management (sharing, protection, securing) of different forms of knowledge. It’s a communications device with some directive elements, and it assigns clear roles and responsibilities. A good policy creates clarity. For those of us who don’t like working in large organisations, policies may seem like constraints on “free” knowledge flows. For those who do work in large organisations, they are hedges against chaotic, unpredictable and ungoverned behaviours. The structure of the template can be found here. It will help discern which elements are simply there by ISO fiat, and which are products of the various committees’ work. https://www.iso.org/management-system-standards.html (PDF on right hand side of page)



I take the view that this is a management system standard around what a management system for knowledge management should look like. It by no means covers all the forms that knowledge management activity in an organisation can and should look like. But if you want to set up a management system for organisation-wide KM, the standard should help you frame that.



As far as integration of KM with other activities goes, the idea of a common management systems standard template across all the ISO management systems standards (Innovation, Information Security, Records Management, QM etc) is that there is consistency of approach and relatability of how management systems are defined, structured and related. I think this means that KM (as a management system) in fact becomes more capable of being connected into other management systems.



By the way this is not a BSI document, it is an ISO document, and is the product of the work of many of the ISO country committees, as well as the international working committee and the ISO HR management systems committees that sit above this. If you just look at it from the frame of BSI and the BSI KM committee's membership, some have leapt to assumptions (ranging from suspicious to borderline defamatory) about the mechanics of how the standard’s content got to its present shape. This is an international multi-country standard with a very specific process guided by a template and the ISO technical committees behind it. To suggest that it could be hijacked for commercial gain (as some have done) is a real stretch. Chris, I think you have taken a more nuanced approach, and I think you have valid concerns. I’m also concerned about the dangers of an audit-to-consult model.



I don’t think this is a perfect document. However we should also avoid the situation where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. KM is especially prone to the problems of “my theory/framework/approach is best”, without any clear authoritative frame of reference, not merely from consultants, but also from internal leaders - I had one colleague the other week who got a new CIO who decided to impose his new organising framework where KM was a sub-branch of data analytics. Everything this friend of mine had been doing around fostering sharing behaviours and transfer of critical knowledge, was suddenly about to evaporate because of the whim of somebody with a bee in his bonnet. This is why I support the idea of a KM standard.



What’s my interest in this? I am not a member of any of the ISO committees or country standards committees, although if Singapore had one, I would probably have signed up. I attended one of the later international meetings in Singapore as an observer and saw some of the workings and constraints, and was impressed by the degree of collegiality and common purpose, among a very diverse set of people, only a few of them KM consultants. As a consultant, I like the idea of an international standard, because it gives a common frame of reference so you can expect to speak a consistent language and work to shared expectations. I don’t feel threatened by it, nor do I think it excludes the more fluid and contextualised work we do. Some of it would align with our approaches, other bits of it would not. On balance I think it's sufficiently high level to accommodate a range of approaches.



It’s out there for public comment (Andrew, the BSI group is the most open form of the standard available for comment, other countries and ISO themselves expect you to buy the draft if you want to comment on it) as part of the ISO process, and within the constraints of the Management Systems Standard structure, I am sure that the country committees and the international committee will work through all the comments, good, constructive, insightful, bad, ugly, and insane that we can expect from a public document like this. Having seen just a fraction of the work that these good people have done I think armchair sniping is unwarranted and unfair. As Chris has done, roll your sleeves up and engage with it. Closing date on BSI is January 16th. Do take a look at the constraints imposed by the ISO template.



It’s quite possible that the standard will not be able to survive the public consultation. Countries can vote for it not to go forward. I think that would be a pity. Personally, I’d prefer to get it out there, however imperfect, and have it tested against real world organisations. Then, perhaps, our field might have a chance of making progress.



P



Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383


<email footer small.jpeg>






website: www..straitsknowledge.com <http://www.straitsknowledge.com/>

weblog: www.greenchameleon.com <http://www.greenchameleon.com/>

twitter: @plambesg





Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com <http://www.aithinsoftware.com/>



On 4 Jan 2018, at 7:55 AM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:





Hi Chris,

I agree with the "asset" nomenclature, I intend to suggest this is removed.

You probably shouldn't ever read ISO 50501 -- I haven't seen a word of text and I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of "standardising" innovation :)

Your point about KM being the de facto standard is well made, but it's unlikely to have much force in shaping outcomes without buy-in from the profession. The last attempt at a KM standard suffered from an entirely different range of problems, and never really found an audience either.

Nancy: Great point. I am very much of your view about KM being interwoven rather than distinct from the other disciplines as well.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com <mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:





My product placement antennae had actually bristled a bit at the mention of a ‘Knowledge Management Asset Strategy”, and the suggestion that the organisation must have a “Knowledge Policy”.



Good challenge/Devil’s advocacy! I was never a fan of the label or the concept of a knowledge management (management) system. To me, KM isn’t quite enough like Quality management or Safety Management to merit the same treatment.



I’m also uncomfortable with the ‘separatist’ approach that is implied by a discretely measurable management system for KM. I’ve always been more integrationist in my approach, dipping into other disciplines and not worried about controlling the borders or building walls. Some of the language and positioning in the BSI document struck me as a bit Trump/Brexitesque.. (OK, so now I’ve offended everyone!)



I think the subtlety of it being a KMS Standard will quickly be lost though, and this would become known as the KM Standard, and KM then becomes perceived (and packaged and sold) as a recipe rather than a set of ingredients..



…and I’d to be known as a chef rather than a fast-food vendor.



Cheers,

Chris





From: <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> km@bounds.net.au[sikmleaders]" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:57
To: <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available





To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:

Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management system" (as distinct from being knowledge management)?

The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison <mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> chris.collison@outlook.com [sikmleaders] wrote:



Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard.

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.



Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures. 130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.



My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests. Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris







From: <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> km@bounds.net.au[sikmleaders]" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List <mailto:actkm@actkm.org> <actkm@actkm.org>, KM for Development <mailto:km4dev-l@dgroups.org> <km4dev-l@dgroups.org>, <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available





Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the <https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421> website:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source: ISO
Committee: HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories: Management. Human resources
Comment period start date: 23/11/2017
Comment period end date: 16/01/2018

Scope
This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the <https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421> BSI site with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================


Chris Collison
 

Thanks Patrick for the reassurance – really helpful and considered response.

From: <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Patrick Lambe plambe@greenchameleon.com [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 02:30
To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available



Some good points here. I was present at the ISO meeting where the references to the importance of treating knowledge as an asset were (re)introduced (I think this has been in and out of the various drafts), and I supported it then. The thinking goes that if you treat organisational knowledge as an asset, then you can more meaningfully talk about conserving, stewarding, risk management, reuse, in managerial terms. It makes sense to create inventories, identify gaps and risks and so on. Since then I have somewhat moderated my views slightly in the sense that “asset” implies ownership and powers of disposition, and of course the organisation does not own all the forms of knowledge available to it (the skills and experience of its people for example). So I am now more comfortable with the term “resource”, but I think the general point remains that it was debated and included with a managerial rationale behind it (and is now available for public review). There is a good case to make for treating knowledge as a resource to be deliberately managed (among other perspectives). If you don’t agree with that, then make the case back (in the document) - that’s how stuff gets formalised in standards work - making cases, arguing it out, coming to a conclusion (or a form of words that the stakeholders can all live with, which is not necessarily the same thing).

The “policy” piece is actually inherited directly from the ISO Management Systems Standard template and is a non-negotiable from ISO - in fact the overall structure of the standard and the broad shape of its elements are inherited. The task of the working committees was to contextualise this to knowledge management. I happen to think that a knowledge (management) policy is a useful thing to have - a policy tells employees that is expected of them in relation to the treatment and management (sharing, protection, securing) of different forms of knowledge. It’s a communications device with some directive elements, and it assigns clear roles and responsibilities. A good policy creates clarity. For those of us who don’t like working in large organisations, policies may seem like constraints on “free” knowledge flows. For those who do work in large organisations, they are hedges against chaotic, unpredictable and ungoverned behaviours. The structure of the template can be found here. It will help discern which elements are simply there by ISO fiat, and which are products of the various committees’ work. https://www.iso.org/management-system-standards.html (PDF on right hand side of page)

I take the view that this is a management system standard around what a management system for knowledge management should look like. It by no means covers all the forms that knowledge management activity in an organisation can and should look like. But if you want to set up a management system for organisation-wide KM, the standard should help you frame that.

As far as integration of KM with other activities goes, the idea of a common management systems standard template across all the ISO management systems standards (Innovation, Information Security, Records Management, QM etc) is that there is consistency of approach and relatability of how management systems are defined, structured and related. I think this means that KM (as a management system) in fact becomes more capable of being connected into other management systems.

By the way this is not a BSI document, it is an ISO document, and is the product of the work of many of the ISO country committees, as well as the international working committee and the ISO HR management systems committees that sit above this. If you just look at it from the frame of BSI and the BSI KM committee's membership, some have leapt to assumptions (ranging from suspicious to borderline defamatory) about the mechanics of how the standard’s content got to its present shape. This is an international multi-country standard with a very specific process guided by a template and the ISO technical committees behind it. To suggest that it could be hijacked for commercial gain (as some have done) is a real stretch. Chris, I think you have taken a more nuanced approach, and I think you have valid concerns. I’m also concerned about the dangers of an audit-to-consult model.

I don’t think this is a perfect document. However we should also avoid the situation where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. KM is especially prone to the problems of “my theory/framework/approach is best”, without any clear authoritative frame of reference, not merely from consultants, but also from internal leaders - I had one colleague the other week who got a new CIO who decided to impose his new organising framework where KM was a sub-branch of data analytics. Everything this friend of mine had been doing around fostering sharing behaviours and transfer of critical knowledge, was suddenly about to evaporate because of the whim of somebody with a bee in his bonnet. This is why I support the idea of a KM standard.

What’s my interest in this? I am not a member of any of the ISO committees or country standards committees, although if Singapore had one, I would probably have signed up. I attended one of the later international meetings in Singapore as an observer and saw some of the workings and constraints, and was impressed by the degree of collegiality and common purpose, among a very diverse set of people, only a few of them KM consultants. As a consultant, I like the idea of an international standard, because it gives a common frame of reference so you can expect to speak a consistent language and work to shared expectations. I don’t feel threatened by it, nor do I think it excludes the more fluid and contextualised work we do. Some of it would align with our approaches, other bits of it would not. On balance I think it's sufficiently high level to accommodate a range of approaches.

It’s out there for public comment (Andrew, the BSI group is the most open form of the standard available for comment, other countries and ISO themselves expect you to buy the draft if you want to comment on it) as part of the ISO process, and within the constraints of the Management Systems Standard structure, I am sure that the country committees and the international committee will work through all the comments, good, constructive, insightful, bad, ugly, and insane that we can expect from a public document like this. Having seen just a fraction of the work that these good people have done I think armchair sniping is unwarranted and unfair. As Chris has done, roll your sleeves up and engage with it. Closing date on BSI is January 16th. Do take a look at the constraints imposed by the ISO template.

It’s quite possible that the standard will not be able to survive the public consultation. Countries can vote for it not to go forward. I think that would be a pity. Personally, I’d prefer to get it out there, however imperfect, and have it tested against real world organisations. Then, perhaps, our field might have a chance of making progress.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

[cid:image001.png@01D38533.095F8E80]



website: www..straitsknowledge.com<http://www.straitsknowledge.com>
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com<http://www.greenchameleon.com>
twitter: @plambesg


Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com<http://www.aithinsoftware.com>

On 4 Jan 2018, at 7:55 AM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au<mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:


Hi Chris,
I agree with the "asset" nomenclature, I intend to suggest this is removed.
You probably shouldn't ever read ISO 50501 -- I haven't seen a word of text and I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of "standardising" innovation :)
Your point about KM being the de facto standard is well made, but it's unlikely to have much force in shaping outcomes without buy-in from the profession. The last attempt at a KM standard suffered from an entirely different range of problems, and never really found an audience either.
Nancy: Great point. I am very much of your view about KM being interwoven rather than distinct from the other disciplines as well.
Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

Stephen Bounds

Executive, Information Management

Cordelta

E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com<mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>

M: 0401 829 096

====================================
On 4/01/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com<mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:


My product placement antennae had actually bristled a bit at the mention of a ‘Knowledge Management Asset Strategy”, and the suggestion that the organisation must have a “Knowledge Policy”.

Good challenge/Devil’s advocacy! I was never a fan of the label or the concept of a knowledge management (management) system. To me, KM isn’t quite enough like Quality management or Safety Management to merit the same treatment.

I’m also uncomfortable with the ‘separatist’ approach that is implied by a discretely measurable management system for KM. I’ve always been more integrationist in my approach, dipping into other disciplines and not worried about controlling the borders or building walls. Some of the language and positioning in the BSI document struck me as a bit Trump/Brexitesque.. (OK, so now I’ve offended everyone!)

I think the subtlety of it being a KMS Standard will quickly be lost though, and this would become known as the KM Standard, and KM then becomes perceived (and packaged and sold) as a recipe rather than a set of ingredients..

…and I’d to be known as a chef rather than a fast-food vendor.

Cheers,
Chris


From: <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au<mailto:km@bounds.net.au>[sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:57
To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available


To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:
Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.
To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management system" (as distinct from being knowledge management)?
The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.
Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

Stephen Bounds

Executive, Information Management

Cordelta

E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com<mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>

M: 0401 829 096

====================================
On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com<mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:

Hi Stephen,
The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard.
I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.
I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.

Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures. 130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests. Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.
Chris



From: <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au<mailto:km@bounds.net.au>[sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List <actkm@actkm.org><mailto:actkm@actkm.org>, KM for Development <km4dev-l@dgroups.org><mailto:km4dev-l@dgroups.org>,"sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available


Hi everyone,
A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.
From the website<https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421>:
BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source: ISO
Committee: HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories: Management. Human resources
Comment period start date: 23/11/2017
Comment period end date: 16/01/2018

Scope
This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.
You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site<https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421> with a free login.
Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?
Regards,
-- Stephen.

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

Stephen Bounds

Executive, Information Management

Cordelta

E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com<mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>

M: 0401 829 096

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


Boris Jaeger
 

Hi Andrew, all,
 
Happy New Year!
 
The English language speaking guys should be very thankful to get this chance to comment for free. The Germans and French e.g. have only the chance to purchase the draft standard. There is also no such sophisticated commenting system in place like on the BSI website. In the German case it's just a simple contact form. Further I am also not aware of a call to public comments from the other standards institutions than the BSI.
 
Hope you consider these lines to be ironic, especially in conjunction with the accusations towards the major drivers of this standard, who already know that it is not the yellow of the egg. Means, it's not exactly brilliant.  "The standard can be revised in 5 years." Is the call to public comments just to get consultation for free? Is it just to justify the standard and base it with some openness?
 
It terms of the standard's content you can always argue pro or con, especially in the field of KM but as «Le Chef» already mentioned there are some hints that this standard is developed by them for them. In terms of content you should also be aware that the standard is based on the Israeli's standard (proposal) and the BSI standard series. Why only BSI and not CEN, SAI, DIN or any other standards for KM?
 
Anyway, the fact that "them" are already promoting the standard through public speaking on events/conferences (since Nov 2016), charging for standard "masterclasses" (in Nov 2017), offering standards "seminars" (since early 2017) or offering support bcs their "KM Framework and KM Policy offerings are fully aligned with the ISO KM standard" (since Dec 2017) is an indicator that they are already preparing/positioning themselves to offer "help". In April one of "them" is organizing a conference, once again since sonkey's years. Coincidence!? Further "them" already thinking out loud about a global society "by the "profession" for the profession". Maybe they call it KMCI, eKnowledgeCenter, GKEC, KMpro, KMI, ICKM/VIST or why "them" just don't extend the existing KMGN to realize this society?
 
They do all this, although the draft has not yet been published, and there are at least two cases where the development of the standard can be discontinued after the publication of the draft. Maybe they know better?
 
That would be enough for me to vote for discontionuing the standard. Btw. I already voted/commented to discontinue the standard's development on the BIS website. Not for one of the reasons above but for a more fundamental I'll come up with if the depelopment isn't stopped.
 
Regards from Germany,
 
Boris Jaeger - "Curiosity is the beginning of all learning!"

CONTACT
jaegerWM - Boris Jaeger
Albert-Stehlin Str. 6
79365 Rheinhausen
DEUTSCHLAND / GERMANY
-----
fon: +49-(0)7643-913880
mobile: +49-(0)1577-7544883
-----
mail: boris.jaeger@...
home: www.jaegerWM.de
-----
mail: boris.jaeger@...
home: www.KMeducationHub.de

ACHIEVEMENTS
KM Thought Leader (2016)
Top 100/50 KM Influencer (2013/15)
KM Multiplier (2010)
KM Expert Team Member (2007-2010)
KM Community Leader (2007-2014)
#1 KM Blogger (2008)
TLO Reviewer of the Year (2006)


Boris Jaeger
 

@Stephen

Thanks for pointing to the "RealKM Open KM Syllabus". I don't want to digg deeper into it in this thread but let me just mention that I already referred to it on the KMedu Hub (see https://kmeducationhub.de/?p=31615)

I cited it as

Stephen Bounds et al.: Open KM Syllabus – 2018 Edition. RealKM Initiative, 1/2018.

and gave attribution to:

RealKM – an initiative of KnowQuestion Pty Ltd

Is that ok?

Btw. If you make the syllabus cc you should remove the copyright message on page 1 of the document

Regards,
Boris


Robert L. Bogue
 

Patrick –

I concur that on balance the standard will probably will do more good than bad. I also agree that it will be used well in some cases and poorly in others.

I think that the part of your message that rang the most true was the idea that there is little consensus as to what KM is, what a program needs to be successful, what the skills are that a practitioner needs to help the program be a success. (Ok, those are my words but that’s what I heard in “fractious, quarrelsome, with competing perspectives and agendas.”)

However, I’m more interested in the fact that few organizations recognize the power of KM to help them solve the problems that the business is facing. I think that the forces that you’re describing are barriers to organizations understanding the clear value and therefore making investments in their people to help them retain their own knowledge and access the knowledge of others in the organization. To that end I’m not sure that the standard will help. Though admittedly, I don’t know what would.

So a good step forward… maybe 😉

Rob
-------------------
Robert L. Bogue
O: (317) 844-5310 M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog

From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 12:51 AM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available



Hi Stephen

The risk is that we'll end up with ISO 30401-compliant implementations which are only a pale shadow of the full range of opportunities available through KM. Is this a problem? I'm not sure.
This is almost certain. And to add on to that it’s not at all clear to me that ISO auditors/certifiers will (at least at the beginning) understand how to audit KM practices/processes effectively. That’s just the cost of an ISO system - I don’t believe KM consultants should both audit and consult, at least to the same clients. That’s where there would be a clear conflict of interest at play. No matter the care taken in the drafting the standard (and I believe there was a lot of care) it will be quite possible for somebody to look good on paper without a great deal of substance behind it. But how is this any different from where we are now?

This is just the insufficiency of any “thin” standards-based approach (or maturity framework, or awards framework, for that matter).

Conversely, good people will be able to use the standard as a framework for good work (as they always do) - just that they won’t have to go through the stupid labour of having to argue from the foundations up.

In and of itself, an effective standard in KM will provide only a framework for action. It can be utilised well or badly. Notwithstanding the inevitable mis-uses or poor uses, I still believe it would put us in a better place than we are now: fractious, quarrelsome, with competing perspectives and agendas, and a thirst for personal freedom that makes us poor at collegiality and collective action. Not to be able to put a standard together after a generation of work would be a poor reflection on us.

Now if it turned out that the standard had mostly negative effects and actively inhibited good work being done and good outcomes, I’d think differently. The way the current standard is framed, I don’t see such universally toxic outcomes. I can see it being misused, and I can see it having benefits, and I believe the balance is more positive than negative.

Standards can be threatening if one feels one has a unique solution and wants to differentiate it as such. But then everybody is just jostling for attention all the time. Standards can be helpful if they do succeed in forming a common frame of reference for people not merely to help them place and stabilise their implementations of KM, but also collaborate more widely around KM.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

[cid:image002.jpg@01D38532.87C7BEB0]



website: www.straitsknowledge.com<http://www.straitsknowledge.com>
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com<http://www.greenchameleon.com>
twitter: @plambesg


Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com<http://www.aithinsoftware.com>

On 4 Jan 2018, at 1:22 PM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au<mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:


Hi Patrick,
I agree with the majority of your sentiments. I do recognise that there has been a substantial amount of effort put into this document, and it is important to avoid shooting the messenger..
Like you, I am sympathetic to the need for a formal knowledge management system structure. I will be suggesting that the language needs to more clearly distinguish the governance component of the management system from the KM discipline itself. Also, despite saying the standard "applicable to all", it is clear that much as ISO 9001 is overkill for some organisations, ISO 30401 won't be necessary for every organization. I am very comfortable with all of that.
You raise the important question of stability for KM programs, and their tendency to be wiped out in organisational reshuffles. A KMS is likely to prevent this; however, what it won't do is clarify the total scope of KM. People tend to assume that their first exposure to "KM" is what the discipline is, whereas it is almost certainly only a very small component of what KM is capable of.
The risk is that we'll end up with ISO 30401-compliant implementations which are only a pale shadow of the full range of opportunities available through KM. Is this a problem? I'm not sure.
I do think that we need to work out how to better communicate what KM is interested in doing, though. To that end, I've recently finished a first edition of an Open KM Syllabus<http://realkm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Open-KM-Syllabus-2018-edition-Themes-and-Topics.pdf> which attempts to comprehensively describe themes and topics that I would want to teach anyone wanting to be competent in all aspects of KM.
Whether a normative theme and topic list like this belongs in a standard such as ISO 30401 is another matter -- I have certainly not come to a firm view on this.
Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

Stephen Bounds

Executive, Information Management

Cordelta

E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com<mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>

M: 0401 829 096

====================================
On 4/01/2018 1:28 PM, Patrick Lambe plambe@greenchameleon.com<mailto:plambe@greenchameleon.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:

Some good points here. I was present at the ISO meeting where the references to the importance of treating knowledge as an asset were (re)introduced (I think this has been in and out of the various drafts), and I supported it then. The thinking goes that if you treat organisational knowledge as an asset, then you can more meaningfully talk about conserving, stewarding, risk management, reuse, in managerial terms. It makes sense to create inventories, identify gaps and risks and so on. Since then I have somewhat moderated my views slightly in the sense that “asset” implies ownership and powers of disposition, and of course the organisation does not own all the forms of knowledge available to it (the skills and experience of its people for example). There is a good case to make for treating knowledge as a resource to be deliberately managed (among other perspectives). If you don’t agree with that, then make the case back (in the document) - that’s how stuff gets formalised in standards work - making cases, arguing it out, coming to a conclusion (or a form of words that the stakeholders can all live with, which is not necessarily the same thing).

The “policy” piece is actually inherited directly from the ISO Management Systems Standard template and is a non-negotiable from ISO - in fact the overall structure of the standard and the broad shape of its elements are inherited. The task of the working committees was to contextualise this to knowledge management. I happen to think that a knowledge (management) policy is a useful thing to have - a policy tells employees that is expected of them in relation to the treatment and management (sharing, protection, securing) of different forms of knowledge. It’s a communications device with some directive elements, and it assigns clear roles and responsibilities. A good policy creates clarity. For those of us who don’t like working in large organisations, policies may seem like constraints on “free” knowledge flows. For those who do work in large organisations, they are hedges against chaotic, unpredictable and ungoverned behaviours. The structure of the template can be found here. It will help discern which elements are simply there by ISO fiat, and which are products of the various committees’ work. https://www.iso.org/management-system-standards.html (PDF on right hand side of page)

I take the view that this is a management system standard around what a management system for knowledge management should look like. It by no means covers all the forms that knowledge management activity in an organisation can and should look like. But if you want to set up a management system for organisation-wide KM, the standard should help you frame that.

As far as integration of KM with other activities goes, the idea of a common management systems standard template across all the ISO management systems standards (Innovation, Information Security, Records Management, QM etc) is that there is consistency of approach and relatability of how management systems are defined, structured and related. I think this means that KM (as a management system) in fact becomes more capable of being connected into other management systems.

By the way this is not a BSI document, it is an ISO document, and is the product of the work of many of the ISO country committees, as well as the international working committee and the ISO HR management systems committees that sit above this. If you just look at it from the frame of BSI and the BSI KM committee's membership, some have leapt to assumptions (ranging from suspicious to borderline defamatory) about the mechanics of how the standard’s content got to its present shape. This is an international multi-country standard with a very specific process guided by a template and the ISO technical committees behind it. To suggest that it could be hijacked for commercial gain (as some have done) is a real stretch. Chris, I think you have taken a more nuanced approach, and I think you have valid concerns. I’m also concerned about the dangers of an audit-to-consult model.

I don’t think this is a perfect document. However we should also avoid the situation where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. KM is especially prone to the problems of “my theory/framework/approach is best”, without any clear authoritative frame of reference, not merely from consultants, but also from internal leaders - I had one colleague the other week who got a new CIO who decided to impose his new organising framework where KM was a sub-branch of data analytics. Everything this friend of mine had been doing around fostering sharing behaviours and transfer of critical knowledge, was suddenly about to evaporate because of the whim of somebody with a bee in his bonnet. This is why I support the idea of a KM standard.

What’s my interest in this? I am not a member of any of the ISO committees or country standards committees, although if Singapore had one, I would probably have signed up. I attended one of the later international meetings in Singapore as an observer and saw some of the workings and constraints, and was impressed by the degree of collegiality and common purpose, among a very diverse set of people, only a few of them KM consultants. As a consultant, I like the idea of an international standard, because it gives a common frame of reference so you can expect to speak a consistent language and work to shared expectations. I don’t feel threatened by it, nor do I think it excludes the more fluid and contextualised work we do. Some of it would align with our approaches, other bits of it would not. On balance I think it's sufficiently high level to accommodate a range of approaches.

It’s out there for public comment (Andrew, the BSI group is the most open form of the standard available for comment, other countries and ISO themselves expect you to buy the draft if you want to comment on it) as part of the ISO process, and within the constraints of the Management Systems Standard structure, I am sure that the country committees and the international committee will work through all the comments, good, constructive, insightful, bad, ugly, and insane that we can expect from a public document like this. Having seen just a fraction of the work that these good people have done I think armchair sniping is unwarranted and unfair. As Chris has done, roll your sleeves up and engage with it. Closing date on BSI is January 16th. Do take a look at the constraints imposed by the ISO template.

It’s quite possible that the standard will not be able to survive the public consultation. Countries can vote for it not to go forward. I think that would be a pity. Personally, I’d prefer to get it out there, however imperfect, and have it tested against real world organisations. Then, perhaps, our field might have a chance of making progress.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383

<email footer small.jpeg>



website: www..straitsknowledge.com<http://www.straitsknowledge.com/>
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com<http://www.greenchameleon.com/>
twitter: @plambesg


Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com<http://www.aithinsoftware.com/>

On 4 Jan 2018, at 7:55 AM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au<mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:


Hi Chris,
I agree with the "asset" nomenclature, I intend to suggest this is removed.
You probably shouldn't ever read ISO 50501 -- I haven't seen a word of text and I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of "standardising" innovation :)
Your point about KM being the de facto standard is well made, but it's unlikely to have much force in shaping outcomes without buy-in from the profession. The last attempt at a KM standard suffered from an entirely different range of problems, and never really found an audience either.
Nancy: Great point. I am very much of your view about KM being interwoven rather than distinct from the other disciplines as well.
Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

Stephen Bounds

Executive, Information Management

Cordelta

E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com<mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>

M: 0401 829 096

====================================
On 4/01/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com<mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:


My product placement antennae had actually bristled a bit at the mention of a ‘Knowledge Management Asset Strategy”, and the suggestion that the organisation must have a “Knowledge Policy”.

Good challenge/Devil’s advocacy! I was never a fan of the label or the concept of a knowledge management (management) system. To me, KM isn’t quite enough like Quality management or Safety Management to merit the same treatment.

I’m also uncomfortable with the ‘separatist’ approach that is implied by a discretely measurable management system for KM. I’ve always been more integrationist in my approach, dipping into other disciplines and not worried about controlling the borders or building walls. Some of the language and positioning in the BSI document struck me as a bit Trump/Brexitesque.. (OK, so now I’ve offended everyone!)

I think the subtlety of it being a KMS Standard will quickly be lost though, and this would become known as the KM Standard, and KM then becomes perceived (and packaged and sold) as a recipe rather than a set of ingredients..

…and I’d to be known as a chef rather than a fast-food vendor.

Cheers,
Chris


From: <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au<mailto:km@bounds.net.au>[sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:57
To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available


To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:
Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.
To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management system" (as distinct from being knowledge management)?
The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.
Cheers,
-- Stephen.

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

Stephen Bounds

Executive, Information Management

Cordelta

E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com<mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>

M: 0401 829 096

====================================
On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com<mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:

Hi Stephen,
The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard.
I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.
I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.

Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures. 130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests. Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.
Chris



From: <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au<mailto:km@bounds.net.au>[sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List <actkm@actkm.org><mailto:actkm@actkm.org>, KM for Development <km4dev-l@dgroups.org><mailto:km4dev-l@dgroups.org>,"sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com"<mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com><mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available


Hi everyone,
A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.
From the website<https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421>:
BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source: ISO
Committee: HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories: Management. Human resources
Comment period start date: 23/11/2017
Comment period end date: 16/01/2018

Scope
This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.
You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the BSI site<https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421> with a free login.
Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?
Regards,
-- Stephen.

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

Stephen Bounds

Executive, Information Management

Cordelta

E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com<mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>

M: 0401 829 096

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


John Hovell
 

I hope its helpful for me to add that I notice and appreciate the tone/depth of the ISO 30401 conversation. Its encouraging to have access, and a network/community such as SIKM, to have an opportunity to contribute to these conversations.



I feel both doubt and hope for the standard. I’ll continue to add my more detailed comments directly to the standard as well.



Thanks for keeping it going!

John



From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 8:08 AM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available





Patrick –



I concur that on balance the standard will probably will do more good than bad. I also agree that it will be used well in some cases and poorly in others.



I think that the part of your message that rang the most true was the idea that there is little consensus as to what KM is, what a program needs to be successful, what the skills are that a practitioner needs to help the program be a success. (Ok, those are my words but that’s what I heard in “fractious, quarrelsome, with competing perspectives and agendas.”)



However, I’m more interested in the fact that few organizations recognize the power of KM to help them solve the problems that the business is facing. I think that the forces that you’re describing are barriers to organizations understanding the clear value and therefore making investments in their people to help them retain their own knowledge and access the knowledge of others in the organization. To that end I’m not sure that the standard will help. Though admittedly, I don’t know what would.



So a good step forward… maybe 😉



Rob

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

Robert L. Bogue

O: (317) 844-5310 M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: <http://www.thorprojects.com/blog> http://www.thorprojects.com/blog



From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 12:51 AM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available





Hi Stephen



The risk is that we'll end up with ISO 30401-compliant implementations which are only a pale shadow of the full range of opportunities available through KM. Is this a problem? I'm not sure.

This is almost certain. And to add on to that it’s not at all clear to me that ISO auditors/certifiers will (at least at the beginning) understand how to audit KM practices/processes effectively. That’s just the cost of an ISO system - I don’t believe KM consultants should both audit and consult, at least to the same clients. That’s where there would be a clear conflict of interest at play. No matter the care taken in the drafting the standard (and I believe there was a lot of care) it will be quite possible for somebody to look good on paper without a great deal of substance behind it. But how is this any different from where we are now?



This is just the insufficiency of any “thin” standards-based approach (or maturity framework, or awards framework, for that matter).



Conversely, good people will be able to use the standard as a framework for good work (as they always do) - just that they won’t have to go through the stupid labour of having to argue from the foundations up.



In and of itself, an effective standard in KM will provide only a framework for action. It can be utilised well or badly. Notwithstanding the inevitable mis-uses or poor uses, I still believe it would put us in a better place than we are now: fractious, quarrelsome, with competing perspectives and agendas, and a thirst for personal freedom that makes us poor at collegiality and collective action. Not to be able to put a standard together after a generation of work would be a poor reflection on us.



Now if it turned out that the standard had mostly negative effects and actively inhibited good work being done and good outcomes, I’d think differently. The way the current standard is framed, I don’t see such universally toxic outcomes. I can see it being misused, and I can see it having benefits, and I believe the balance is more positive than negative.



Standards can be threatening if one feels one has a unique solution and wants to differentiate it as such. But then everybody is just jostling for attention all the time. Standards can be helpful if they do succeed in forming a common frame of reference for people not merely to help them place and stabilise their implementations of KM, but also collaborate more widely around KM.



P



Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383










website: www.straitsknowledge.com <http://www.straitsknowledge.com>

weblog: www.greenchameleon.com <http://www.greenchameleon.com>

twitter: @plambesg






Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com <http://www.aithinsoftware.com>



On 4 Jan 2018, at 1:22 PM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:





Hi Patrick,

I agree with the majority of your sentiments. I do recognise that there has been a substantial amount of effort put into this document, and it is important to avoid shooting the messenger..

Like you, I am sympathetic to the need for a formal knowledge management system structure. I will be suggesting that the language needs to more clearly distinguish the governance component of the management system from the KM discipline itself. Also, despite saying the standard "applicable to all", it is clear that much as ISO 9001 is overkill for some organisations, ISO 30401 won't be necessary for every organization. I am very comfortable with all of that.

You raise the important question of stability for KM programs, and their tendency to be wiped out in organisational reshuffles. A KMS is likely to prevent this; however, what it won't do is clarify the total scope of KM. People tend to assume that their first exposure to "KM" is what the discipline is, whereas it is almost certainly only a very small component of what KM is capable of.

The risk is that we'll end up with ISO 30401-compliant implementations which are only a pale shadow of the full range of opportunities available through KM. Is this a problem? I'm not sure.

I do think that we need to work out how to better communicate what KM is interested in doing, though. To that end, I've recently finished a first edition of an <http://realkm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Open-KM-Syllabus-2018-edition-Themes-and-Topics.pdf> Open KM Syllabus which attempts to comprehensively describe themes and topics that I would want to teach anyone wanting to be competent in all aspects of KM.

Whether a normative theme and topic list like this belongs in a standard such as ISO 30401 is another matter -- I have certainly not come to a firm view on this.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 1:28 PM, Patrick Lambe plambe@greenchameleon.com <mailto:plambe@greenchameleon.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:



Some good points here. I was present at the ISO meeting where the references to the importance of treating knowledge as an asset were (re)introduced (I think this has been in and out of the various drafts), and I supported it then. The thinking goes that if you treat organisational knowledge as an asset, then you can more meaningfully talk about conserving, stewarding, risk management, reuse, in managerial terms. It makes sense to create inventories, identify gaps and risks and so on. Since then I have somewhat moderated my views slightly in the sense that “asset” implies ownership and powers of disposition, and of course the organisation does not own all the forms of knowledge available to it (the skills and experience of its people for example). There is a good case to make for treating knowledge as a resource to be deliberately managed (among other perspectives). If you don’t agree with that, then make the case back (in the document) - that’s how stuff gets formalised in standards work - making cases, arguing it out, coming to a conclusion (or a form of words that the stakeholders can all live with, which is not necessarily the same thing).



The “policy” piece is actually inherited directly from the ISO Management Systems Standard template and is a non-negotiable from ISO - in fact the overall structure of the standard and the broad shape of its elements are inherited. The task of the working committees was to contextualise this to knowledge management. I happen to think that a knowledge (management) policy is a useful thing to have - a policy tells employees that is expected of them in relation to the treatment and management (sharing, protection, securing) of different forms of knowledge. It’s a communications device with some directive elements, and it assigns clear roles and responsibilities. A good policy creates clarity. For those of us who don’t like working in large organisations, policies may seem like constraints on “free” knowledge flows. For those who do work in large organisations, they are hedges against chaotic, unpredictable and ungoverned behaviours. The structure of the template can be found here. It will help discern which elements are simply there by ISO fiat, and which are products of the various committees’ work. https://www.iso.org/management-system-standards.html (PDF on right hand side of page)



I take the view that this is a management system standard around what a management system for knowledge management should look like. It by no means covers all the forms that knowledge management activity in an organisation can and should look like. But if you want to set up a management system for organisation-wide KM, the standard should help you frame that.



As far as integration of KM with other activities goes, the idea of a common management systems standard template across all the ISO management systems standards (Innovation, Information Security, Records Management, QM etc) is that there is consistency of approach and relatability of how management systems are defined, structured and related. I think this means that KM (as a management system) in fact becomes more capable of being connected into other management systems.



By the way this is not a BSI document, it is an ISO document, and is the product of the work of many of the ISO country committees, as well as the international working committee and the ISO HR management systems committees that sit above this. If you just look at it from the frame of BSI and the BSI KM committee's membership, some have leapt to assumptions (ranging from suspicious to borderline defamatory) about the mechanics of how the standard’s content got to its present shape. This is an international multi-country standard with a very specific process guided by a template and the ISO technical committees behind it. To suggest that it could be hijacked for commercial gain (as some have done) is a real stretch. Chris, I think you have taken a more nuanced approach, and I think you have valid concerns. I’m also concerned about the dangers of an audit-to-consult model.



I don’t think this is a perfect document. However we should also avoid the situation where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. KM is especially prone to the problems of “my theory/framework/approach is best”, without any clear authoritative frame of reference, not merely from consultants, but also from internal leaders - I had one colleague the other week who got a new CIO who decided to impose his new organising framework where KM was a sub-branch of data analytics. Everything this friend of mine had been doing around fostering sharing behaviours and transfer of critical knowledge, was suddenly about to evaporate because of the whim of somebody with a bee in his bonnet. This is why I support the idea of a KM standard.



What’s my interest in this? I am not a member of any of the ISO committees or country standards committees, although if Singapore had one, I would probably have signed up. I attended one of the later international meetings in Singapore as an observer and saw some of the workings and constraints, and was impressed by the degree of collegiality and common purpose, among a very diverse set of people, only a few of them KM consultants. As a consultant, I like the idea of an international standard, because it gives a common frame of reference so you can expect to speak a consistent language and work to shared expectations. I don’t feel threatened by it, nor do I think it excludes the more fluid and contextualised work we do. Some of it would align with our approaches, other bits of it would not. On balance I think it's sufficiently high level to accommodate a range of approaches.



It’s out there for public comment (Andrew, the BSI group is the most open form of the standard available for comment, other countries and ISO themselves expect you to buy the draft if you want to comment on it) as part of the ISO process, and within the constraints of the Management Systems Standard structure, I am sure that the country committees and the international committee will work through all the comments, good, constructive, insightful, bad, ugly, and insane that we can expect from a public document like this. Having seen just a fraction of the work that these good people have done I think armchair sniping is unwarranted and unfair. As Chris has done, roll your sleeves up and engage with it. Closing date on BSI is January 16th. Do take a look at the constraints imposed by the ISO template.



It’s quite possible that the standard will not be able to survive the public consultation. Countries can vote for it not to go forward. I think that would be a pity. Personally, I’d prefer to get it out there, however imperfect, and have it tested against real world organisations. Then, perhaps, our field might have a chance of making progress.



P



Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383


<email footer small.jpeg>







website: www..straitsknowledge.com <http://www.straitsknowledge.com/>

weblog: www.greenchameleon.com <http://www.greenchameleon.com/>

twitter: @plambesg






Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com <http://www.aithinsoftware.com/>



On 4 Jan 2018, at 7:55 AM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:





Hi Chris,

I agree with the "asset" nomenclature, I intend to suggest this is removed.

You probably shouldn't ever read ISO 50501 -- I haven't seen a word of text and I'm already uncomfortable with the idea of "standardising" innovation :)

Your point about KM being the de facto standard is well made, but it's unlikely to have much force in shaping outcomes without buy-in from the profession. The last attempt at a KM standard suffered from an entirely different range of problems, and never really found an audience either.

Nancy: Great point. I am very much of your view about KM being interwoven rather than distinct from the other disciplines as well.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 10:26 AM, Chris Collison chris.collison@outlook.com <mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> [sikmleaders] wrote:





My product placement antennae had actually bristled a bit at the mention of a ‘Knowledge Management Asset Strategy”, and the suggestion that the organisation must have a “Knowledge Policy”.



Good challenge/Devil’s advocacy! I was never a fan of the label or the concept of a knowledge management (management) system. To me, KM isn’t quite enough like Quality management or Safety Management to merit the same treatment.



I’m also uncomfortable with the ‘separatist’ approach that is implied by a discretely measurable management system for KM. I’ve always been more integrationist in my approach, dipping into other disciplines and not worried about controlling the borders or building walls. Some of the language and positioning in the BSI document struck me as a bit Trump/Brexitesque.. (OK, so now I’ve offended everyone!)



I think the subtlety of it being a KMS Standard will quickly be lost though, and this would become known as the KM Standard, and KM then becomes perceived (and packaged and sold) as a recipe rather than a set of ingredients..



…and I’d to be known as a chef rather than a fast-food vendor.



Cheers,

Chris





From: <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> km@bounds.net.au[sikmleaders]" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:57
To: <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available





To reply to my own email ... I realised that you may be referring to the presumption of "audit-to-consult" as product placement. You then write:

Sometimes [KM is] a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.

To play devil's advocate, can any of these reasonably be called a "knowledge management system" (as distinct from being knowledge management)?

The idea of a KMS is the scope of the standard, after all. What you describe are not really systems in their own right, but rather ninja interventions to an existing system.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2018 9:47 AM, Chris Collison <mailto:chris.collison@outlook.com> chris.collison@outlook.com [sikmleaders] wrote:



Hi Stephen,

The BSI version reads like is started out with good intentions as a non-prescriptive, flexible framework to prompt thought - but somehow became hijacked as a consultants’ charter with a fair degree of product placement, and subconsciously enshrining ‘our approach’ conveniently in a standard.

I do believe that people invested their time with good intent, and I’m aware that not having been involved in the meetings makes me something of an armchair critic.

I’ve made 40 comments since it was published - it’s a laborious process, but it’s important that we engage.



Overall it takes a standpoint that KM has to exist as a managed programme with policies, roles and measures. 130 clients on, my experience is that KM is a set is possible responses to the state of an organisation, applied thoughtfully and contextually and in conjunction with a much wider range of interventions and functions. Sometimes it’s a stealth operation, sometimes a partnership, sometimes a slipstream, sometimes a viral experiment. The standard needs to reflect this, rather than foreshadow an audit-to-consult process.



My view is that it needs to be wound back to something much more generic, simpler, less prescriptive, and purged of any vested interests. Then it could genuinely be a helpful business prompt which serves the many rather than the few.

Chris







From: <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of "Stephen Bounds <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> km@bounds.net.au[sikmleaders]" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:31
To: ActKM Discussion List <mailto:actkm@actkm.org> <actkm@actkm.org>, KM for Development <mailto:km4dev-l@dgroups.org> <km4dev-l@dgroups.org>, <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> "sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available





Hi everyone,

A reminder that the draft standard for knowledge management systems (ISO 30401) now has a public draft available for comment.

From the <https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421> website:

BS ISO 30401 Knowledge management systems -- Requirements
Source: ISO
Committee: HCS/1 - Human Capital
Categories: Management. Human resources
Comment period start date: 23/11/2017
Comment period end date: 16/01/2018

Scope
This international standard sets requirements and provide guidelines for establishing, implementing, maintaining, reviewing and improving an effective management system for knowledge management in organizations. All the requirements of this international standard are applicable to any organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides.

You can read the draft and make official comments by registering on the <https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03421> BSI site with a free login.

Who has had a chance to read the draft KM standard? Any thoughts?

Regards,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@cordelta.com <mailto:stephen.bounds@cordelta.com>
M: 0401 829 096
====================================


 

Curious if Stephen Bounds’ Open KM Syllabus is part of the grounding framework that can be incorporated into the ISO standard? I may have missed this.

 

I am also providing comments/thoughts online to the standard through the Brit portal.

 

Best

 

Bill

 

 

 

  

 

Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com

 

 

 

 

Release of RealKM Open KM Syllabus

By Stephen Bounds on 05 January 2018
An initiative which attempts to systematically describe the themes and topics required for a fully-rounded education in knowledge management theory and practice.  Read more » 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 08:06
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

@Stephen

 

Thanks for pointing to the "RealKM Open KM Syllabus". I don't want to digg deeper into it in this thread but let me just mention that I already referred to it on the KMedu Hub (see https://kmeducationhub.de/?p=31615)

 

I cited it as

 

Stephen Bounds et al.: Open KM Syllabus – 2018 Edition. RealKM Initiative, 1/2018.

 

and gave attribution to:

 

RealKM – an initiative of KnowQuestion Pty Ltd

 

Is that ok?

 

Btw. If you make the syllabus cc you should remove the copyright message on page 1 of the document

 

Regards,

Boris

 


Stephen Bounds
 

No, it's not. I would certainly welcome any moves in that direction (whether using my syllabus or another), although I don't know if it's feasible from an ISO standpoint.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 6/01/2018 1:00 AM, Bill Kaplan bill@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

Curious if Stephen Bounds’ Open KM Syllabus is part of the grounding framework that can be incorporated into the ISO standard? I may have missed this.

 

I am also providing comments/thoughts online to the standard through the Brit portal.

 

Best

 

Bill

 

 

 

  

 

Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com

 

 

 

 

Release of RealKM Open KM Syllabus

By Stephen Bounds on 05 January 2018
An initiative which attempts to systematically describe the themes and topics required for a fully-rounded education in knowledge management theory and practice.  Read more » 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 08:06
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - KM standard draft available

 

 

@Stephen

 

Thanks for pointing to the "RealKM Open KM Syllabus". I don't want to digg deeper into it in this thread but let me just mention that I already referred to it on the KMedu Hub (see https://kmeducationhub.de/?p=31615)

 

I cited it as

 

Stephen Bounds et al.: Open KM Syllabus – 2018 Edition. RealKM Initiative, 1/2018.

 

and gave attribution to:

 

RealKM – an initiative of KnowQuestion Pty Ltd

 

Is that ok?

 

Btw. If you make the syllabus cc you should remove the copyright message on page 1 of the document

 

Regards,

Boris