Hello all,

I’ll apologize for the dramatic subject line, but I’d like to open up about a tone I seem to be hearing lately. It seems that there’s a growing theme of KM is failing. Suddenly all companies are doing it wrong and somehow KM is in desperate need of reimagination.

I believe KM can be confusing, and I agree that there’s many ways to define it. But I don’t share the belief that KM must evolve into machine learning, AI/AR, blockchain and IoT. Those are exciting things, but there’s a mountain of merit to be had in old school fundamental Web 2.0  approaches that were all the rage 10 years ago.

I’ve always said that one of the cornerstones of KM is to learn what we already know, and especially using the tools that we already have. Initiatives to rip and replace systems in pursuit of something new and shiny doesn’t really address the human behavioral changes that were needed in the old system. The sarcastic side of me thinks that if we need to reimagine KM, we probably didn’t understand very well in the first place. 😊

I like some of the new discussions lately. But I’ll continue to resist the notion that KM is in need of a metamorphosis. All things evolve, less easily in large, rigid organizations. You know what’s urgent regarding KM and where management’s priorities are. My challenge to you is to stay the course. Keep moving the program forward!

Best of luck KMers!

Tony Melendez

bamaster@...

I offer the following:
https://sikm.groups.io/g/main/photo/137830/1639451/meme_KM.jpg

This subject seems to appear in cycles over time.

Here’s a perspective. It goes back to how one views KM,  I believe that KM is primarily about continuous performance improvement in the context of the business and operational (BOE) environment of the organization “deploying” it.  The organization needs a defined KM Strategy that informs the development (and implementation) of a KM environment (KME) in the organization so it is a fit for the BOE and enables the organization to achieve its desired mission outcomes. It does not preclude expanding the KM umbrella to incorporate other disciplines (data science, records management, etc.) based on the KM strategy developed to more effectively and efficiently achieve the organization’s’ desired business, operational, and KM outcomes.

I don’t remember this changing over the years.

For consideration

Bill Kaplan

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

Nicely stated Bill!

I wonder about the reasons why such questions can be asked ad infinitum…

I agree that everything should be challenged to ensure relevance (perhaps this question can be given the evidence)

In this era where Critical Thinking is the #1 future skill identified by the World Economic Forum and where knowledge is the leading form of competitive advantage and decision making, I thought we can lead with higher quality questions and a range of options around opportunities rather the dwell on pessimistic change resistance. Clearly there are things in EVERY field that evolve over time and the name given to the topic or discipline is debatable – BUT … (or should I optimistically say AND?)

Those who are applying the principles of KM are leading benefits in many places, whilst those debating over questions that have been answers many times are wallowing in the past. With the release of the ISO KM standard last week https://www.iso.org/standard/68683.html there are those getting on with what CAN be done and those who simply continue to complain about what CAN’T be done.

Whilst some knowledge dies (and sh0ould) KM is alive and well.

Future success has always been an outcome of the effective cocreation and application of new knowledge to relevant contexts better than other around you - and always will be (now more than ever).

A

Fake News Tony!

There is so much value being created by those doing good KM (these are too busy being successful for conferences and forums) and so much value destroyed by people doing bad KM (those sharing negative lessons learned at conferences).

Like any topic - for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD.

We are as successful or as limited as the knowledge we acquire and apply and how we critically assess what we are being told.

Why do 1000 people turn up to KM World each year if the concept is dead (that’s a BIG funeral! – rather more like a party of ongoing success).

Check it out here: https://www.iso.org/standard/68683.html

Why would ISO release an international Standard for KM  two weeks ago and add a KM clause to its most popular international standard in 2015?

Perhaps the question has a typo and should be a statement instead? - KM is deadly (to those who reject it or don’t apply it well)

Perhaps those successfully applying it don’t what others to know how good it is so they spread negative rumours to maintain advantage?

Don’t believe the hype - make up your own mind… using knowledge informed decision making
(and when you do that you will be proving good KM is not dead)

A

Arthur,

I agree completely.  Old school and new school KM will always be of interest because organizations are at different points in their journey. Some probably do need a complete KM reboot, but I’d wager most just need a booster shot and good project management. Even as KM practitioners, we’re also at different times in our career. I find it a challenge to tell stories about how we did it “back in the day.” How many of you remember Netscape Navigator? Or Mosaic? Usenet? (for the record I don’t remember punch cards) 😊 Enterprise social networks aren’t new, we just called them a BBS back then.

Ok, that’s an over simplification. I’m all for next-gen applications, I think they are cool too, but my point is connecting people and sharing knowledge will always be a good idea.

I’d also like to agree with Jean-Claude about the name Knowledge Management. It’s a terrible label. I think Dan Ranta, formerly with ConocoPhillips, told me he used the job title Director of Knowledge Sharing because people didn’t intuitively know what knowledge management was.

Tony Melendez

“So. Let us quit agonizing over our relevance, over KM’s relevance, over KM’s definition, objectives or purpose. No more talk in public about tacit and explict. I propose we instead focus on a very simple question: How can we improve the way work gets done to save time or reduce costs? How can we help support achievement of strategic intent, by improving internal processes, practices and structure?”

In the spirit of productive debate… are these KM questions? I mean, anyone and everyone can ask these questions, from accounting, procurement, loss prevention, HR, etc. Isn’t it kinda like asking “how can we be more profitable?”  Certainly KM isn’t a cure for ALL ills, right?

Tony

Hi Tony and Boris,

Sincere apology is any offence was taken – it was certainly not meant.

Edward de Bono stated that Humour is the most underutilised management tool.

The challenge with remote communications is that perceptions of what was said are often misinterpreted (just one reason why human interactions are essential to good KM).

Here is Australia, we laugh at all of our leaders and we can’t even keep one for an entire term! J

Truly, it is hard to take ill-informed, self-centred “leaders” seriously. Anyone who thinks they are “the one” who is absolutely needed, are clearly blind to the many great people who are doing a great job without all the hype. These mostly silent capable leaders includes the members of this forum. If only more people in power would engage here - they would make better decisions.

A provocative questions deserves a provocative response to stimulate respectful and robust argument. Where there is disagreement there can be creativity and innovation, IF they are engaged in a constructive dialogue. Without differences in opinion we limit sources of new possibilities and new opportunities.

When someone disagrees with me, I am inclined to seek to understand why this is the case. I can accept  and accept their “reality” in parallel to my own views.

It is how learning happens. Contrary to what many think about education - it is NOT filling peoples’ minds with what is already known. Highest quality education opening minds to new possibilities  and often breaks patterns in doing so. This requires conflicting perspectives to be shared in what I call “Creative Friction”. That is, creating new knowledge and insights though socialising  and reflecting on differences, based on combining and adapting what is known from past contexts and experiences. This is what AI, IR, IOT and the new concepts don’t yet understand. Yes, machines are getting better at learning and ae great at analysing what is already known. However, they still need a human to see what is missing in all those amazing visualisations and patterns they generate. The (human) knowledge leaders of the future are those quickly filling the gaps (highlighted by machines) in our exiting patterns of knowledge. The algorithms are still biased by the people that write them as well. I am sure this will get better in time – but the best bots still struggle to engage and optimise decisions in unpredictable environments no better than a 4 year old human.

On this basis the human side of knowledge will always remain a critical component of KM (I would argue THE critical element for sustained success).

The human aspects of this SIKM Leaders forum has always been the authentic heart and soul of it continued engagement. I don’t see that changing soon.