Hi All,
I am actually working on setting up a kind of a high level Knowledge Management framework/ Model to wrap up the how KM is managed in the organization.
We do actually have a Knowledge and Innovation Management Strategy. We also have some Procedures written for some initiatives For example:
- Managing internal Knowledge resources - Starting from Identifying knowledge resources (as some call it Explicit Knowledge) to be captured all through sharing them on the internal portal to be used and then assess the usage and utilization.
- Managing external Knowledge resources - Almost like the above initiative Procedure, but it is about knowledge resources brought in from external sources.
- Creating Employee profiling - Something like LinkedIN - to enable collaboration
Besides some other Knowledge sharing and learning activities (online and Physical)
what do you think could be a kind of a high level KM framework/ Model from the literature could be helpful to wrap these up.
Thanks and regards, Soha
|
|

Paul McDowall
Hi Soha, Since
the best KM strategies are aligned closely with business needs, the
best KM frameworks are reflective of the business focus for KM. As an
example, I'm including a KM Framework I developed for one government
organization. The KM program I developed was hugely successful and the
framework reflected the business focus.
Best Paul
|
|
You might consider one of the many KM Maturity Models that are out there, rather than a framework, per se. A maturity model would help you evaluate both where your company is with regard to collecting, organizing and re-using stuff, measuring value of doing it, etc., while also pointing the way toward what you should be focused on achieving next.
|
|
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce has the capabilities, expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective strategy.
You can download it at:
|
|
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational approach (how knowledge is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes of knowledge sharing activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model. On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to the organization) I can use such framework. However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them, and then documenting and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model. If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which they refer to as Implicit knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
Many thanks,
Soha.
On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@... [sikmleaders]
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce has the capabilities, expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective strategy.
You can download it at:
|
|
Been reading through these conversations as well as this subject within other conversations not associated with sikmleaders.
I offer some thought from my years of practice in designing and implementing KM frameworks in the public, private, and international sectors.
- KM Frameworks (how) and the underlying KM Strategy (what) that supports KM implementation and future sustainment of the framework must be (1) context relevant and (2) fit-for- purpose
to the organization to which they apply.
- Cloning, lifting, or copying an existing framework, and subsequently the underlying KM strategy, rarely works well over the longer term because it may not be entirely business or
operationally relevant in the necessary detail for it to be sustainable for success (one size does not fit all).
- I believe KM Frameworks and the underlying KM Strategy must first be based on a deep understating of the organization’s business and operational environment (BOE) tied to the mission
and strategic vison of the organization and the organization’s existing current state knowledge management environment (KME) assessed in multiple specific areas. This is so that any recommendations being made are aligned with and support the unique characteristics
and mission of the organization and its workforce dynamics/processes and the KM vison of the leadership and the organization’s workforce. This essential to making change happen because the organization sees change as valuable to success.
It's much more complicated than this basic explanation. The take away is that KM Strategies and KM Framework should be aligned with the DNA of the subject organization…not a top down overlay.
For consideration
Best
Bill
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at
www.workingknowledge-csp.com
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 00:45
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM framework
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational
approach (how knowledge is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes
of knowledge sharing activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model.
On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to
the organization) I can use such framework.
However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them,
and then documenting and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model.
If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which
they refer to as Implicit knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce
has the capabilities, expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective
strategy.
|
|
Dear Soha,
I'm afraid you are putting too much hope in a perfect definition of 'Frameworks' and 'Roadmaps' versus your real needs. Possibly you are missing a key point, which I discern from your follow on questions.
In one sense, a Framework is a basic structure underlying a system or concept, whereas a 'Roadmap', often a graphic, shows a plan for achieving a goal, typically with some hi-level detail. But, in my opinion what you needs is the last in the triad..a KM Methodology.
If a roadmap tells you what needs to be done, as it should, a robust methodology tells you how to do it, often (and hopefully) in great detail, including: proven activities, staffing, expected timeframes, and even barriers to success that must be overcome, and much more.
For instance, a good methodology would have you hone in on the greatest opportunities, which may not be just 'generic' knowledge sharing and learning activities. For instance, many organizations are still attempting to improve K retention (retirement and turnover). The solution for them is a very well-defined and proven initiative we call K Retention and Continuity.
Best wishes, Douglas Weidner Chief CKM Instructor KM Institute
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational approach (how knowledge is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes of knowledge sharing activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model. On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to the organization) I can use such framework. However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them, and then documenting and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model. If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which they refer to as Implicit knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
Many thanks,
Soha.
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce has the capabilities, expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective strategy.
You can download it at:
|
|
Well stated Bill.
Our only difference may be semantics.
For instance, you focused on the KM Strategy, which is indeed critical.
I'm focusing on the KM Methodology - which is meant to create a unique outcome--the KM Strategy, which is itself dictated by the organization's status. Or, as you say, "the unique characteristics and mission of the organization."
Cheers, Douglas Weidner Chief CKM Instructor KM Institute
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Been reading through these conversations as well as this subject within other conversations not associated with sikmleaders.
I offer some thought from my years of practice in designing and implementing KM frameworks in the public, private, and international sectors.
- KM Frameworks (how) and the underlying KM Strategy (what) that supports KM implementation and future sustainment of the framework must be (1) context relevant and (2) fit-for- purpose
to the organization to which they apply.
- Cloning, lifting, or copying an existing framework, and subsequently the underlying KM strategy, rarely works well over the longer term because it may not be entirely business or
operationally relevant in the necessary detail for it to be sustainable for success (one size does not fit all).
- I believe KM Frameworks and the underlying KM Strategy must first be based on a deep understating of the organization’s business and operational environment (BOE) tied to the mission
and strategic vison of the organization and the organization’s existing current state knowledge management environment (KME) assessed in multiple specific areas. This is so that any recommendations being made are aligned with and support the unique characteristics
and mission of the organization and its workforce dynamics/processes and the KM vison of the leadership and the organization’s workforce. This essential to making change happen because the organization sees change as valuable to success.
It's much more complicated than this basic explanation. The take away is that KM Strategies and KM Framework should be aligned with the DNA of the subject organization…not a top down overlay.
For consideration
Best
Bill
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at
www.workingknowledge-csp.com
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational
approach (how knowledge is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes
of knowledge sharing activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model.
On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to
the organization) I can use such framework.
However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them,
and then documenting and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model.
If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which
they refer to as Implicit knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce
has the capabilities, expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective
strategy.
|
|
To be clear, we view the KM Methodology recommended as part of the implementing practices that support the KM Framework based on the BOE and the existing KME..
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 08:55
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM framework
Well stated Bill.
Our only difference may be semantics.
For instance, you focused on the KM Strategy, which is indeed critical.
I'm focusing on the KM Methodology - which is meant to create a unique outcome--the KM Strategy, which is itself dictated by the organization's status. Or, as you say, "the
unique characteristics and mission of the organization."
Been reading through these conversations as well as this subject within other conversations not associated with sikmleaders.
I offer some thought from my years of practice in designing and implementing KM frameworks in the public, private, and international sectors.
-
KM Frameworks (how) and the underlying KM Strategy (what) that supports KM implementation and future sustainment of the framework must be (1) context relevant and (2) fit-for- purpose to the organization to which they apply.
-
Cloning, lifting, or copying an existing framework, and subsequently the underlying KM strategy, rarely works well over the longer term because it may not be entirely business or operationally relevant in the necessary detail for it to be sustainable for success
(one size does not fit all).
-
I believe KM Frameworks and the underlying KM Strategy must first be based on a deep understating of the organization’s business and operational environment (BOE) tied to the mission and strategic vison of the organization and the organization’s existing current
state knowledge management environment (KME) assessed in multiple specific areas. This is so that any recommendations being made are aligned with and support the unique characteristics and mission of the organization and its workforce dynamics/processes and
the KM vison of the leadership and the organization’s workforce. This essential to making change happen because the organization sees change as valuable to success.
It's much more complicated than this basic explanation. The take away is that KM Strategies and KM Framework should be aligned with the DNA of the subject organization…not a top down overlay..
For consideration
Best
Bill
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at
www.workingknowledge-csp.com
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational approach (how knowledge
is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes of knowledge sharing
activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model.
On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to the organization) I
can use such framework.
However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them, and then documenting
and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model.
If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which they refer to as Implicit
knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce has the capabilities,
expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective strategy.
|
|
Understood. And that is the clarification I've provided...that a Framework by itself is insufficient.
A robust methodology is needed to determine the unique KM Strategy for the organization in question.
Too many KM newcomers (Soha?) think a Framework or Roadmap is sufficient. Necessary, but not sufficient.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
To be clear, we view the KM Methodology recommended as part of the implementing practices that support the KM Framework based on the BOE and the existing KME..
Well stated Bill.
Our only difference may be semantics.
For instance, you focused on the KM Strategy, which is indeed critical.
I'm focusing on the KM Methodology - which is meant to create a unique outcome--the KM Strategy, which is itself dictated by the organization's status. Or, as you say, "the
unique characteristics and mission of the organization."
Been reading through these conversations as well as this subject within other conversations not associated with sikmleaders.
I offer some thought from my years of practice in designing and implementing KM frameworks in the public, private, and international sectors.
-
KM Frameworks (how) and the underlying KM Strategy (what) that supports KM implementation and future sustainment of the framework must be (1) context relevant and (2) fit-for- purpose to the organization to which they apply.
-
Cloning, lifting, or copying an existing framework, and subsequently the underlying KM strategy, rarely works well over the longer term because it may not be entirely business or operationally relevant in the necessary detail for it to be sustainable for success
(one size does not fit all).
-
I believe KM Frameworks and the underlying KM Strategy must first be based on a deep understating of the organization’s business and operational environment (BOE) tied to the mission and strategic vison of the organization and the organization’s existing current
state knowledge management environment (KME) assessed in multiple specific areas. This is so that any recommendations being made are aligned with and support the unique characteristics and mission of the organization and its workforce dynamics/processes and
the KM vison of the leadership and the organization’s workforce. This essential to making change happen because the organization sees change as valuable to success.
It's much more complicated than this basic explanation. The take away is that KM Strategies and KM Framework should be aligned with the DNA of the subject organization…not a top down overlay..
For consideration
Best
Bill
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at
www.workingknowledge-csp.com
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational approach (how knowledge
is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes of knowledge sharing
activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model.
On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to the organization) I
can use such framework.
However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them, and then documenting
and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model.
If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which they refer to as Implicit
knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce has the capabilities,
expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective strategy.
|
|
Thanks a lot All for your insights.
Actually We do have a Knowledge and Innovation Strategy (which identifies the main strategic priorities based on internal and external environmental analysis). For clarification, we as a government organization have to pass through various assessment and audit programs, where an essential requirement is to set our capabilities (strategies, approaches, programs , etc) post benchmarking with successful international models . However, this doesn't ever mean to apply such models. But to build on and modify if applicable. Definitely, I am not looking for a framework to copy and paste because simply it will never work. I totally understand, given that KM is all about enabling the organization to achieve its objectives, and not an end result per se.
My question above came from another point (may be I was not very clear about it) which is, I have been noticing while researching that some models use the same methodology when dealing with information management and knowledge management. In other words, as if both can be managed in the same way. That's why I gave the example of the APQC . When I say if I apply it, it is Just IF for the sake of the example, and doesn't mean that I will apply it regardless of what the business is. The main point is managing both information and knowledge in the same manner - regardless of what kind of methodoly used- is not practical. Hope I can convey my message.
Thanks again for your valuable insights.
Soha.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 7:31 pm, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
Understood. And that is the clarification I've provided...that a Framework by itself is insufficient.
A robust methodology is needed to determine the unique KM Strategy for the organization in question.
Too many KM newcomers (Soha?) think a Framework or Roadmap is sufficient. Necessary, but not sufficient.
To be clear, we view the KM Methodology recommended as part of the implementing practices that support the KM Framework based on the BOE and the existing KME..
Well stated Bill.
Our only difference may be semantics.
For instance, you focused on the KM Strategy, which is indeed critical.
I'm focusing on the KM Methodology - which is meant to create a unique outcome--the KM Strategy, which is itself dictated by the organization's status. Or, as you say, "the
unique characteristics and mission of the organization."
Been reading through these conversations as well as this subject within other conversations not associated with sikmleaders.
I offer some thought from my years of practice in designing and implementing KM frameworks in the public, private, and international sectors.
-
KM Frameworks (how) and the underlying KM Strategy (what) that supports KM implementation and future sustainment of the framework must be (1) context relevant and (2) fit-for- purpose to the organization to which they apply.
-
Cloning, lifting, or copying an existing framework, and subsequently the underlying KM strategy, rarely works well over the longer term because it may not be entirely business or operationally relevant in the necessary detail for it to be sustainable for success
(one size does not fit all).
-
I believe KM Frameworks and the underlying KM Strategy must first be based on a deep understating of the organization’s business and operational environment (BOE) tied to the mission and strategic vison of the organization and the organization’s existing current
state knowledge management environment (KME) assessed in multiple specific areas. This is so that any recommendations being made are aligned with and support the unique characteristics and mission of the organization and its workforce dynamics/processes and
the KM vison of the leadership and the organization’s workforce. This essential to making change happen because the organization sees change as valuable to success.
It's much more complicated than this basic explanation. The take away is that KM Strategies and KM Framework should be aligned with the DNA of the subject organization…not a top down overlay..
For consideration
Best
Bill
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at
www.workingknowledge-csp.com
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational approach (how knowledge
is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes of knowledge sharing
activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model.
On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to the organization) I
can use such framework.
However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them, and then documenting
and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model.
If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which they refer to as Implicit
knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce has the capabilities,
expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective strategy.
|
|
Dear Soha,
Your clarification is very helpful. You have hit upon a major KM dilemma.
There are a number of good methodologies, which can be categorized into two groups. Those we call a 'KM Systems Approach', which have as an underlying assumption (often unstated but implicit), that IT is the KM driver.
Other approaches, we call the 'KM Transformation Approach', explicitly defines IT as an enabler, but that human motivation (and subsequent performance) is the driver in the K Age.
Obviously, the resultant 'KM Strategies' are quite different.
Douglas Weidner Chief CKM Instructor
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks a lot All for your insights.
Actually We do have a Knowledge and Innovation Strategy (which identifies the main strategic priorities based on internal and external environmental analysis). For clarification, we as a government organization have to pass through various assessment and audit programs, where an essential requirement is to set our capabilities (strategies, approaches, programs , etc) post benchmarking with successful international models . However, this doesn't ever mean to apply such models. But to build on and modify if applicable. Definitely, I am not looking for a framework to copy and paste because simply it will never work. I totally understand, given that KM is all about enabling the organization to achieve its objectives, and not an end result per se.
My question above came from another point (may be I was not very clear about it) which is, I have been noticing while researching that some models use the same methodology when dealing with information management and knowledge management. In other words, as if both can be managed in the same way. That's why I gave the example of the APQC . When I say if I apply it, it is Just IF for the sake of the example, and doesn't mean that I will apply it regardless of what the business is. The main point is managing both information and knowledge in the same manner - regardless of what kind of methodoly used- is not practical. Hope I can convey my message.
Thanks again for your valuable insights.
Soha.
Understood. And that is the clarification I've provided...that a Framework by itself is insufficient.
A robust methodology is needed to determine the unique KM Strategy for the organization in question.
Too many KM newcomers (Soha?) think a Framework or Roadmap is sufficient. Necessary, but not sufficient.
To be clear, we view the KM Methodology recommended as part of the implementing practices that support the KM Framework based on the BOE and the existing KME..
Well stated Bill.
Our only difference may be semantics.
For instance, you focused on the KM Strategy, which is indeed critical.
I'm focusing on the KM Methodology - which is meant to create a unique outcome--the KM Strategy, which is itself dictated by the organization's status. Or, as you say, "the
unique characteristics and mission of the organization."
Been reading through these conversations as well as this subject within other conversations not associated with sikmleaders.
I offer some thought from my years of practice in designing and implementing KM frameworks in the public, private, and international sectors.
-
KM Frameworks (how) and the underlying KM Strategy (what) that supports KM implementation and future sustainment of the framework must be (1) context relevant and (2) fit-for- purpose to the organization to which they apply.
-
Cloning, lifting, or copying an existing framework, and subsequently the underlying KM strategy, rarely works well over the longer term because it may not be entirely business or operationally relevant in the necessary detail for it to be sustainable for success
(one size does not fit all).
-
I believe KM Frameworks and the underlying KM Strategy must first be based on a deep understating of the organization’s business and operational environment (BOE) tied to the mission and strategic vison of the organization and the organization’s existing current
state knowledge management environment (KME) assessed in multiple specific areas. This is so that any recommendations being made are aligned with and support the unique characteristics and mission of the organization and its workforce dynamics/processes and
the KM vison of the leadership and the organization’s workforce. This essential to making change happen because the organization sees change as valuable to success.
It's much more complicated than this basic explanation. The take away is that KM Strategies and KM Framework should be aligned with the DNA of the subject organization…not a top down overlay..
For consideration
Best
Bill
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at
www.workingknowledge-csp.com
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational approach (how knowledge
is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes of knowledge sharing
activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model.
On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to the organization) I
can use such framework.
However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them, and then documenting
and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model.
If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which they refer to as Implicit
knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce has the capabilities,
expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective strategy.
|
|
Thanks Douglas The 2 categories you set have helped on solving this dilemma. I find it pretty logical to have different ways to manage different approaches
Cheers
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 9:55 pm, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders wrote:
Dear Soha,
Your clarification is very helpful. You have hit upon a major KM dilemma.
There are a number of good methodologies, which can be categorized into two groups. Those we call a 'KM Systems Approach', which have as an underlying assumption (often unstated but implicit), that IT is the KM driver.
Other approaches, we call the 'KM Transformation Approach', explicitly defines IT as an enabler, but that human motivation (and subsequent performance) is the driver in the K Age.
Obviously, the resultant 'KM Strategies' are quite different.
Douglas Weidner Chief CKM Instructor
Thanks a lot All for your insights.
Actually We do have a Knowledge and Innovation Strategy (which identifies the main strategic priorities based on internal and external environmental analysis). For clarification, we as a government organization have to pass through various assessment and audit programs, where an essential requirement is to set our capabilities (strategies, approaches, programs , etc) post benchmarking with successful international models . However, this doesn't ever mean to apply such models. But to build on and modify if applicable. Definitely, I am not looking for a framework to copy and paste because simply it will never work. I totally understand, given that KM is all about enabling the organization to achieve its objectives, and not an end result per se.
My question above came from another point (may be I was not very clear about it) which is, I have been noticing while researching that some models use the same methodology when dealing with information management and knowledge management. In other words, as if both can be managed in the same way. That's why I gave the example of the APQC . When I say if I apply it, it is Just IF for the sake of the example, and doesn't mean that I will apply it regardless of what the business is. The main point is managing both information and knowledge in the same manner - regardless of what kind of methodoly used- is not practical. Hope I can convey my message.
Thanks again for your valuable insights.
Soha.
Understood. And that is the clarification I've provided...that a Framework by itself is insufficient.
A robust methodology is needed to determine the unique KM Strategy for the organization in question.
Too many KM newcomers (Soha?) think a Framework or Roadmap is sufficient. Necessary, but not sufficient.
To be clear, we view the KM Methodology recommended as part of the implementing practices that support the KM Framework based on the BOE and the existing KME..
Well stated Bill.
Our only difference may be semantics.
For instance, you focused on the KM Strategy, which is indeed critical.
I'm focusing on the KM Methodology - which is meant to create a unique outcome--the KM Strategy, which is itself dictated by the organization's status. Or, as you say, "the
unique characteristics and mission of the organization."
Been reading through these conversations as well as this subject within other conversations not associated with sikmleaders.
I offer some thought from my years of practice in designing and implementing KM frameworks in the public, private, and international sectors.
-
KM Frameworks (how) and the underlying KM Strategy (what) that supports KM implementation and future sustainment of the framework must be (1) context relevant and (2) fit-for- purpose to the organization to which they apply.
-
Cloning, lifting, or copying an existing framework, and subsequently the underlying KM strategy, rarely works well over the longer term because it may not be entirely business or operationally relevant in the necessary detail for it to be sustainable for success
(one size does not fit all).
-
I believe KM Frameworks and the underlying KM Strategy must first be based on a deep understating of the organization’s business and operational environment (BOE) tied to the mission and strategic vison of the organization and the organization’s existing current
state knowledge management environment (KME) assessed in multiple specific areas. This is so that any recommendations being made are aligned with and support the unique characteristics and mission of the organization and its workforce dynamics/processes and
the KM vison of the leadership and the organization’s workforce. This essential to making change happen because the organization sees change as valuable to success.
It's much more complicated than this basic explanation. The take away is that KM Strategies and KM Framework should be aligned with the DNA of the subject organization…not a top down overlay..
For consideration
Best
Bill
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at
www.workingknowledge-csp.com
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational approach (how knowledge
is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes of knowledge sharing
activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model.
On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to the organization) I
can use such framework.
However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them, and then documenting
and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model.
If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which they refer to as Implicit
knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce has the capabilities,
expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective strategy.
|
|
Soha,
You are most welcome. Please feel free to contact me directly, if you have any further questions or would like to see our Framework and Roadmap graphics.
Douglas
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks Douglas The 2 categories you set have helped on solving this dilemma. I find it pretty logical to have different ways to manage different approaches
Cheers Soha
Dear Soha,
Your clarification is very helpful. You have hit upon a major KM dilemma.
There are a number of good methodologies, which can be categorized into two groups. Those we call a 'KM Systems Approach', which have as an underlying assumption (often unstated but implicit), that IT is the KM driver.
Other approaches, we call the 'KM Transformation Approach', explicitly defines IT as an enabler, but that human motivation (and subsequent performance) is the driver in the K Age.
Obviously, the resultant 'KM Strategies' are quite different.
Douglas Weidner Chief CKM Instructor
Thanks a lot All for your insights.
Actually We do have a Knowledge and Innovation Strategy (which identifies the main strategic priorities based on internal and external environmental analysis). For clarification, we as a government organization have to pass through various assessment and audit programs, where an essential requirement is to set our capabilities (strategies, approaches, programs , etc) post benchmarking with successful international models . However, this doesn't ever mean to apply such models. But to build on and modify if applicable. Definitely, I am not looking for a framework to copy and paste because simply it will never work. I totally understand, given that KM is all about enabling the organization to achieve its objectives, and not an end result per se.
My question above came from another point (may be I was not very clear about it) which is, I have been noticing while researching that some models use the same methodology when dealing with information management and knowledge management. In other words, as if both can be managed in the same way. That's why I gave the example of the APQC . When I say if I apply it, it is Just IF for the sake of the example, and doesn't mean that I will apply it regardless of what the business is. The main point is managing both information and knowledge in the same manner - regardless of what kind of methodoly used- is not practical. Hope I can convey my message.
Thanks again for your valuable insights.
Soha.
Understood. And that is the clarification I've provided...that a Framework by itself is insufficient.
A robust methodology is needed to determine the unique KM Strategy for the organization in question.
Too many KM newcomers (Soha?) think a Framework or Roadmap is sufficient. Necessary, but not sufficient.
To be clear, we view the KM Methodology recommended as part of the implementing practices that support the KM Framework based on the BOE and the existing KME..
Well stated Bill.
Our only difference may be semantics.
For instance, you focused on the KM Strategy, which is indeed critical.
I'm focusing on the KM Methodology - which is meant to create a unique outcome--the KM Strategy, which is itself dictated by the organization's status. Or, as you say, "the
unique characteristics and mission of the organization."
Been reading through these conversations as well as this subject within other conversations not associated with sikmleaders.
I offer some thought from my years of practice in designing and implementing KM frameworks in the public, private, and international sectors.
-
KM Frameworks (how) and the underlying KM Strategy (what) that supports KM implementation and future sustainment of the framework must be (1) context relevant and (2) fit-for- purpose to the organization to which they apply.
-
Cloning, lifting, or copying an existing framework, and subsequently the underlying KM strategy, rarely works well over the longer term because it may not be entirely business or operationally relevant in the necessary detail for it to be sustainable for success
(one size does not fit all).
-
I believe KM Frameworks and the underlying KM Strategy must first be based on a deep understating of the organization’s business and operational environment (BOE) tied to the mission and strategic vison of the organization and the organization’s existing current
state knowledge management environment (KME) assessed in multiple specific areas. This is so that any recommendations being made are aligned with and support the unique characteristics and mission of the organization and its workforce dynamics/processes and
the KM vison of the leadership and the organization’s workforce. This essential to making change happen because the organization sees change as valuable to success.
It's much more complicated than this basic explanation. The take away is that KM Strategies and KM Framework should be aligned with the DNA of the subject organization…not a top down overlay..
For consideration
Best
Bill
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at
www.workingknowledge-csp.com
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational approach (how knowledge
is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes of knowledge sharing
activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model.
On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to the organization) I
can use such framework.
However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them, and then documenting
and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model.
If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which they refer to as Implicit
knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce has the capabilities,
expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective strategy.
|
|
Hi Douglas,
I would love to see your framework and Roadmap graphics if possible.
Many thanks
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Monday, 14 January 2019, 22:40:02 GMT+4, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
Soha,
You are most welcome. Please feel free to contact me directly, if you have any further questions or would like to see our Framework and Roadmap graphics.
Douglas
Thanks Douglas The 2 categories you set have helped on solving this dilemma. I find it pretty logical to have different ways to manage different approaches
Cheers Soha
Dear Soha,
Your clarification is very helpful. You have hit upon a major KM dilemma.
There are a number of good methodologies, which can be categorized into two groups. Those we call a 'KM Systems Approach', which have as an underlying assumption (often unstated but implicit), that IT is the KM driver.
Other approaches, we call the 'KM Transformation Approach', explicitly defines IT as an enabler, but that human motivation (and subsequent performance) is the driver in the K Age.
Obviously, the resultant 'KM Strategies' are quite different.
Douglas Weidner Chief CKM Instructor
Thanks a lot All for your insights.
Actually We do have a Knowledge and Innovation Strategy (which identifies the main strategic priorities based on internal and external environmental analysis). For clarification, we as a government organization have to pass through various assessment and audit programs, where an essential requirement is to set our capabilities (strategies, approaches, programs , etc) post benchmarking with successful international models . However, this doesn't ever mean to apply such models. But to build on and modify if applicable. Definitely, I am not looking for a framework to copy and paste because simply it will never work. I totally understand, given that KM is all about enabling the organization to achieve its objectives, and not an end result per se.
My question above came from another point (may be I was not very clear about it) which is, I have been noticing while researching that some models use the same methodology when dealing with information management and knowledge management. In other words, as if both can be managed in the same way. That's why I gave the example of the APQC . When I say if I apply it, it is Just IF for the sake of the example, and doesn't mean that I will apply it regardless of what the business is. The main point is managing both information and knowledge in the same manner - regardless of what kind of methodoly used- is not practical. Hope I can convey my message.
Thanks again for your valuable insights.
Soha.
Understood. And that is the clarification I've provided...that a Framework by itself is insufficient.
A robust methodology is needed to determine the unique KM Strategy for the organization in question.
Too many KM newcomers (Soha?) think a Framework or Roadmap is sufficient. Necessary, but not sufficient.
To be clear, we view the KM Methodology recommended as part of the implementing practices that support the KM Framework based on the BOE and the existing KME..
Well stated Bill.
Our only difference may be semantics.
For instance, you focused on the KM Strategy, which is indeed critical.
I'm focusing on the KM Methodology - which is meant to create a unique outcome--the KM Strategy, which is itself dictated by the organization's status. Or, as you say, "the
unique characteristics and mission of the organization."
Been reading through these conversations as well as this subject within other conversations not associated with sikmleaders.
I offer some thought from my years of practice in designing and implementing KM frameworks in the public, private, and international sectors.
-
KM Frameworks (how) and the underlying KM Strategy (what) that supports KM implementation and future sustainment of the framework must be (1) context relevant and (2) fit-for- purpose to the organization to which they apply.
-
Cloning, lifting, or copying an existing framework, and subsequently the underlying KM strategy, rarely works well over the longer term because it may not be entirely business or operationally relevant in the necessary detail for it to be sustainable for success
(one size does not fit all).
-
I believe KM Frameworks and the underlying KM Strategy must first be based on a deep understating of the organization’s business and operational environment (BOE) tied to the mission and strategic vison of the organization and the organization’s existing current
state knowledge management environment (KME) assessed in multiple specific areas. This is so that any recommendations being made are aligned with and support the unique characteristics and mission of the organization and its workforce dynamics/processes and
the KM vison of the leadership and the organization’s workforce. This essential to making change happen because the organization sees change as valuable to success.
It's much more complicated than this basic explanation. The take away is that KM Strategies and KM Framework should be aligned with the DNA of the subject organization…not a top down overlay..
For consideration
Best
Bill
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at
www.workingknowledge-csp.com
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational approach (how knowledge
is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes of knowledge sharing
activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model.
On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to the organization) I
can use such framework.
However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them, and then documenting
and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model.
If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which they refer to as Implicit
knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce has the capabilities,
expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective strategy.
|
|
Here's a graphic of our *Knowledge Maturity Model**™.* It could be considered a *framework, *which I define as "a basic structure underlying a system or concept." But, unlike most frameworks, it is also an operational tool. And, unlike most maturity models, it is both *diagnostic *(an assessment) and *prescriptive *(what actions should I take to increase maturity toward becoming a Learning Organization?). https://groups.io/g/SIKM/photo/137830/9?p=Created,,,20,2,0,0 To be prescriptive, the KMM needs a wealth of *prescriptive recommendations*, which derive from a comprehensive KM Methodology. A methodology can be depicted as a Roadmap, which I define as "a graphic which shows a plan for achieving a goal." https://groups.io/g/SIKM/photo/137830/10?p=Created,,,20,2,0,0 A *dilemma *- The maturity model graphic could be considered a Roadmap as well. So, I'm less concerned with such definitions as opposed to having workable and well documented solutions. Two clarifications on above graphic. The nature of KM requires an *iterative loop* (arrow from Phase IV back to Phase II), which is not typical of a roadmap. And, we use a *metaphor *to clearly *differentiate *the transformation inspired 'quick wins' (KM Squirrels) from the more strategic K initiatives (KM Bulls) I hope this helps. Douglas Weidner Chief CKM Instructor www.kminstitute.org On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 12:02 AM soha radwan soharadwan@yahoo.co.uk [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote: [Attachment(s) <#m_1006591897610010884_TopText> from soha radwan included below]
Hi Douglas,
I would love to see your framework and Roadmap graphics if possible.
Many thanks
On Monday, 14 January 2019, 22:40:02 GMT+4, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@kminstitute.org [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Soha,
You are most welcome. Please feel free to contact me directly, if you have any further questions or would like to see our Framework and Roadmap graphics.
Douglas douglas.weidner@kminstitute.org
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 1:09 PM soha radwan soharadwan@yahoo.co.uk [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thanks Douglas The 2 categories you set have helped on solving this dilemma. I find it pretty logical to have different ways to manage different approaches
Cheers Soha
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 9:55 pm, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@kminstitute.org [sikmleaders <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Dear Soha,
Your clarification is very helpful. You have hit upon a major KM dilemma.
There are a number of good methodologies, which can be categorized into two groups. Those we call a *'KM Systems Approach'*, which have as an underlying assumption (often unstated but implicit), that IT is the KM driver.
Other approaches, we call the *'KM Transformation Approach'*, explicitly defines IT as an enabler, but that human motivation (and subsequent performance) is the driver in the K Age.
Obviously, the resultant* 'KM Strategies'* are quite different.
Douglas Weidner Chief CKM Instructor www.kminstitute.org <http://www..kminstitute.org>
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:42 PM soha radwan soharadwan@yahoo.co.uk [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Thanks a lot All for your insights.
Actually We do have a Knowledge and Innovation Strategy (which identifies the main strategic priorities based on internal and external environmental analysis). For clarification, we as a government organization have to pass through various assessment and audit programs, where an essential requirement is to set our capabilities (strategies, approaches, programs , etc) post benchmarking with successful international models . However, this doesn't ever mean to apply such models. But to build on and modify if applicable. Definitely, I am not looking for a framework to copy and paste because simply it will never work. I totally understand, given that KM is all about enabling the organization to achieve its objectives, and not an end result per se.
My question above came from another point (may be I was not very clear about it) which is, I have been noticing while researching that some models use the same methodology when dealing with information management and knowledge management. In other words, as if both can be managed in the same way. That's why I gave the example of the APQC .. When I say if I apply it, it is Just IF for the sake of the example, and doesn't mean that I will apply it regardless of what the business is. The main point is managing both information and knowledge in the same manner - regardless of what kind of methodoly used- is not practical. Hope I can convey my message.
Thanks again for your valuable insights.
Soha.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 7:31 pm, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@kminstitute.org [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Understood. And that is the clarification I've provided...that a *Framework *by itself is insufficient.
A robust methodology is needed to determine the unique *KM Strategy* for the organization in question.
Too many KM newcomers (Soha?) think a Framework or Roadmap is sufficient. Necessary, but not sufficient.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:45 AM Bill Kaplan bill@workingknowledge-csp.com <bill@workingknowledge-csp..com> [sikmleaders] < sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
To be clear, we view the KM Methodology recommended as part of the implementing practices that support the KM Framework based on the BOE and the existing KME..
*From:* sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com> < sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> *Sent:* Monday, January 14, 2019 08:55 *To:* sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM framework
Well stated Bill.
Our only difference may be semantics.
For instance, you focused on the *KM Strategy, *which is indeed critical.
I'm focusing on the *KM Methodology* - which is meant to create a unique outcome--the KM Strategy, which is itself dictated by the organization's status. Or, as you say, "the unique characteristics and mission of the organization."
Cheers,
Douglas Weidner
Chief CKM Instructor
KM Institute
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Bill Kaplan bill@workingknowledge-csp.com <bill@workingknowledge-csp...com> [sikmleaders] < sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Been reading through these conversations as well as this subject within other conversations not associated with sikmleaders.
I offer some thought from my years of practice in designing and implementing KM frameworks in the public, private, and international sectors.
1. KM Frameworks (how) and the underlying KM Strategy (what) that supports KM implementation and future sustainment of the framework must be (1) context relevant and (2) fit-for- purpose to the organization to which they apply. 2. Cloning, lifting, or copying an existing framework, and subsequently the underlying KM strategy, rarely works well over the longer term because it may not be entirely business or operationally relevant in the necessary detail for it to be sustainable for success (one size does not fit all). 3. I believe KM Frameworks and the underlying KM Strategy must first be based on a deep understating of the organization’s business and operational environment (BOE) tied to the mission and strategic vison of the organization and the organization’s existing current state knowledge management environment (KME) assessed in multiple specific areas. This is so that any recommendations being made are aligned with and support the unique characteristics and mission of the organization and its workforce dynamics/processes and the KM vison of the leadership and the organization’s workforce. This essential to making change happen because the organization sees change as valuable to success.
It's much more complicated than this basic explanation. The take away is that KM Strategies and KM Framework should be aligned with the DNA of the subject organization…not a top down overlay..
For consideration
Best
Bill
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/billkaplankm> <http://www.twitter.com/billkaplankm>
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com
*From:* sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> *Sent:* Monday, January 14, 2019 00:45 *To:* sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM framework
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational approach (how knowledge is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes of knowledge sharing activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model.
On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to the organization) I can use such framework.
However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them, and then documenting and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something). I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model.
If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which they refer to as Implicit knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
Many thanks,
Soha..
On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@gmail.com [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce has the capabilities, expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective strategy.
You can download it at:
http://www.transferknowhow.com/documents/SCG%20-%20Unlocking%20the%20Value%20of%20Knowledge%20Transfer.pdf
|
|
Hi Soha, You’ve received some good suggestions. I would add that there really is no one KM framework that will fit all spaces in a mid-sized to larger organization or that will solve all your problems. This being said, I would suggest you also look into areas such as but not limited to: - Library Management (LM) Structures (e.g. Libraries, composed of Catalogs, composed of Indexes, composed of Artifacts that appear uniquely and in contextualized groups)
- This is commonly used as a means of created a “centralized” Document & Content Management framework that allows for highly organized “federated” spaces (i.e. “Communities of Practice”) that allow for individualized security and role constraints
- Design Thinking Frameworks
- Mostly used by non-technical business stakeholders as problem solving frameworks to address small and large problems.
- Examples: “Double Diamond”, “IDEO’s Design Thinking Process”, “Heart, Head, Hand”, “d.school’s 5 Stage Process”, “HCD - Human Centered Design”
- Engineering, Enterprise Architecture, and Solutions Architecture Frameworks
- Mostly used by IT/technical organizations as problem solving frameworks to address small and large problems.
- These frameworks are usually “far” more complex and detailed than the Design Thinking Frameworks.
- Examples: “CMMI”, “TOGAF”, “IF4IT Solutions Architecture Framework / SAF”, “Zachman Framework”
None of the above actually gets into areas such as Data Management or Business Intelligence (such as Analytics and Reporting), which also tie heavily into organizational KM, and need to always be explored/managed. Attempting to address your documented concerns: - Managing Internal vs. External Resources: Consider the Library Management Structures as a way of creating Indexed Groups of “Internal” vs. “External”, further categorized by relevant “Topics.” You can append all knowledge assets/artifacts off the centralized Library Management backbone.
- Knowledge Sharing: Implementing an LM structure also allow you to more effectively capture knowledge (in controlled branches of the library) and share knowledge (from controlled branches of the library).
- NOTE: This will also make it far easier to implement search “across all branches of the Library.”
- Employee Profiling: There are many tools (like Sharepoint and Confluence) that alredy allow you to do this. I suggest not starting from scratch and leveraging one (or more). Also, if your enterprise picks one of these tools, you can make it the foundation for containing and exposing your LM Structures.
- NOTE: Do not forget that whatever frameworks you pick will have to also include dimensions or aspects such as but not limited to: Security, Audit & Compliance, Regulatory Reporting, Records Management, etc.
I hope this helps. My Best, Frank
-- Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) http://www.if4it.com 1.908.294.5191 (M) Guerino1_Skype (S) From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders Reply-To: SIKM Leaders Date: Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 1:39 AM To: SIKM Leaders Subject: [sikmleaders] KM framework I am actually working on setting up a kind of a high level Knowledge Management framework/ Model to wrap up the how KM is managed in the organization. We do actually have a Knowledge and Innovation Management Strategy. We also have some Procedures written for some initiatives For example: - Managing internal Knowledge resources - Starting from Identifying knowledge resources (as some call it Explicit Knowledge) to be captured all through sharing them on the internal portal to be used and then assess the usage and utilization. - Managing external Knowledge resources - Almost like the above initiative Procedure, but it is about knowledge resources brought in from external sources. - Creating Employee profiling - Something like LinkedIN - to enable collaboration Besides some other Knowledge sharing and learning activities (online and Physical) what do you think could be a kind of a high level KM framework/ Model from the literature could be helpful to wrap these up.
|
|
I like how you stated it also Bill and I agree with the emphasis on KM strategy, I would focus the KM strategy on alignment with the organizational strategy as being key and then using KM governance to keep the KM activity focused on value generating activities for the organization. so yes, to me, KM strategy is key....murray jennex
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Mon, Jan 14, 2019 5:58 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM framework
Well stated Bill.
Our only difference may be semantics.
For instance, you focused on the KM Strategy, which is indeed critical.
I'm focusing on the KM Methodology - which is meant to create a unique outcome--the KM Strategy, which is itself dictated by the organization's status. Or, as you say, "the unique characteristics and mission of the organization."
Cheers,
Douglas Weidner
Chief CKM Instructor
KM Institute
Been reading through these conversations as well as this subject within other conversations not associated with sikmleaders.
I offer some thought from my years of practice in designing and implementing KM frameworks in the public, private, and international sectors.
- KM Frameworks (how) and the underlying KM Strategy (what) that supports KM implementation and future sustainment of the framework must be (1) context relevant and (2) fit-for- purpose
to the organization to which they apply.
- Cloning, lifting, or copying an existing framework, and subsequently the underlying KM strategy, rarely works well over the longer term because it may not be entirely business or
operationally relevant in the necessary detail for it to be sustainable for success (one size does not fit all).
- I believe KM Frameworks and the underlying KM Strategy must first be based on a deep understating of the organization’s business and operational environment (BOE) tied to the mission
and strategic vison of the organization and the organization’s existing current state knowledge management environment (KME) assessed in multiple specific areas. This is so that any recommendations being made are aligned with and support the unique characteristics
and mission of the organization and its workforce dynamics/processes and the KM vison of the leadership and the organization’s workforce. This essential to making change happen because the organization sees change as valuable to success.
It's much more complicated than this basic explanation. The take away is that KM Strategies and KM Framework should be aligned with the DNA of the subject organization…not a top down overlay..
For consideration
Best
Bill
Many thanks for the replies. Thanks Jeff, Tom and Paul for sharing such valuable materials.
Going through the literature, I have noticed few things, I will appreciate your feedback on a couple:
1- I have noticed that some times the concept (KM framework) can be used to represent a holistic approach ( including all influencers) or can be used to represent an operational
approach (how knowledge is managed) and sometimes referred to as a KM Model.
2- Some operational frameworks - like for example the APQC Framework - tackle both tangibles (docs and info or what some call it Explicit Knowledge) and intangibles (processes
of knowledge sharing activities which entail managing the genuine knowledge) in the same way, or using the same model.
On a practical ground, if I want to apply how documents and info are managed (starting from identifying what we need to capture all through till they are used in adding value to
the organization) I can use such framework.
However If I want to apply this framework on managing and utilizing employees knowledge through designing knowledge sharing and learning activities based on needs, piloting them,
and then documenting and sharing the outcomes, it will not very feasible to be applied (or maybe I miss something).. I think when a part of this knowledge is documented, I can then start apply this model.
If so, do you think we can design 2 models/ frameworks, one for the so called Explicit Knowledge (Docs on internal portal) and another for managing the genuine knowledge which
they refer to as Implicit knowledge.
Would appreciate your valuable feedback on both points.
For your consideration. I recently shared a white paper describing my KM vision.
This paper describes how effective knowledge transfer can create extraordinary value in your critical business metrics while helping to ensure that your workforce
has the capabilities, expertise, flexibility and resilience to adapt to change and thrive versus your competition.
It covers the business value, a comprehensive set of effective knowledge transfer processes, tools and behavior shaping that represent the four pillars of an effective
strategy.
|
|
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019, 20:22:40 GMT+4, Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
Hi Soha, You’ve received some good suggestions. I would add that there really is no one KM framework that will fit all spaces in a mid-sized to larger organization or that will solve all your problems. This being said, I would suggest you also look into areas such as but not limited to: - Library Management (LM) Structures (e.g. Libraries, composed of Catalogs, composed of Indexes, composed of Artifacts that appear uniquely and in contextualized groups)
- This is commonly used as a means of created a “centralized” Document & Content Management framework that allows for highly organized “federated” spaces (i.e. “Communities of Practice”) that allow for individualized security and role constraints
- Design Thinking Frameworks
- Mostly used by non-technical business stakeholders as problem solving frameworks to address small and large problems.
- Examples: “Double Diamond”, “IDEO’s Design Thinking Process”, “Heart, Head, Hand”, “d.school’s 5 Stage Process”, “HCD - Human Centered Design”
- Engineering, Enterprise Architecture, and Solutions Architecture Frameworks
- Mostly used by IT/technical organizations as problem solving frameworks to address small and large problems.
- These frameworks are usually “far” more complex and detailed than the Design Thinking Frameworks.
- Examples: “CMMI”, “TOGAF”, “IF4IT Solutions Architecture Framework / SAF”, “Zachman Framework”
None of the above actually gets into areas such as Data Management or Business Intelligence (such as Analytics and Reporting), which also tie heavily into organizational KM, and need to always be explored/managed. Attempting to address your documented concerns: - Managing Internal vs. External Resources: Consider the Library Management Structures as a way of creating Indexed Groups of “Internal” vs. “External”, further categorized by relevant “Topics.” You can append all knowledge assets/artifacts off the centralized Library Management backbone.
- Knowledge Sharing: Implementing an LM structure also allow you to more effectively capture knowledge (in controlled branches of the library) and share knowledge (from controlled branches of the library).
- NOTE: This will also make it far easier to implement search “across all branches of the Library.”
- Employee Profiling: There are many tools (like Sharepoint and Confluence) that alredy allow you to do this. I suggest not starting from scratch and leveraging one (or more). Also, if your enterprise picks one of these tools, you can make it the foundation for containing and exposing your LM Structures.
- NOTE: Do not forget that whatever frameworks you pick will have to also include dimensions or aspects such as but not limited to: Security, Audit & Compliance, Regulatory Reporting, Records Management, etc.
I hope this helps. My Best, Frank
-- Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) http://www.if4it.com 1.908.294.5191 (M) Guerino1_Skype (S) From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders Reply-To: SIKM Leaders Date: Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 1:39 AM To: SIKM Leaders Subject: [sikmleaders] KM framework I am actually working on setting up a kind of a high level Knowledge Management framework/ Model to wrap up the how KM is managed in the organization. We do actually have a Knowledge and Innovation Management Strategy. We also have some Procedures written for some initiatives For example: - Managing internal Knowledge resources - Starting from Identifying knowledge resources (as some call it Explicit Knowledge) to be captured all through sharing them on the internal portal to be used and then assess the usage and utilization. - Managing external Knowledge resources - Almost like the above initiative Procedure, but it is about knowledge resources brought in from external sources. - Creating Employee profiling - Something like LinkedIN - to enable collaboration Besides some other Knowledge sharing and learning activities (online and Physical) what do you think could be a kind of a high level KM framework/ Model from the literature could be helpful to wrap these up.
|
|