Topics

KM framework #strategy #vision #maturity


Soha Radwan
 

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

Paul McDowall
Know How Works
Ottawa, Canada
Web: www.knowhowworks.com


Tom Short <tman9999@...>
 

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. 

I’m sure there are relevant items in Stan Garfield’s excellent collection. Here’s one I found via a quick Google search: https://medium.com/@stangarfield/knowledge-management-maturity-models-fd094ed49e48

Good luck with your effort.

Tom Short
San Francisco


Jeff Stemke
 

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:


Soha Radwan
 

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.

 

  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

 

 

 

 

  

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

Many thanks,

 

Soha.

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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:

 


Douglas Weidner
 

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






On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:45 AM soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:
 

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] <sikmleaders@...> 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:


Douglas Weidner
 

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@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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

 

 

 

 

  

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

Many thanks,

 

Soha.

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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:

 


 

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@... <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." 

 

Cheers,

Douglas Weidner

Chief CKM Instructor

KM Institute

 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Bill Kaplan bill@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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

 

 

 

 

  

 

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

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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.

 

Many thanks,

 

Soha.

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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:

 


Douglas Weidner
 

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@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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@... <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." 

 

Cheers,

Douglas Weidner

Chief CKM Instructor

KM Institute

 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Bill Kaplan bill@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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

 

 

 

 

  

 

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

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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.

 

Many thanks,

 

Soha.

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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:

 


Soha Radwan
 

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. 





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.

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:45 AM Bill Kaplan bill@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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." 

 

Cheers,

Douglas Weidner

Chief CKM Instructor

KM Institute

 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Bill Kaplan bill@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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

 

 

 

 

  

 

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

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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.

 

Many thanks,

 

Soha..

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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:

 


Douglas Weidner
 

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

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:42 PM soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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. 





On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 7:31 pm, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders]
 

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@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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." 

 

Cheers,

Douglas Weidner

Chief CKM Instructor

KM Institute

 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Bill Kaplan bill@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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

 

 

 

 

  

 

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

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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.

 

Many thanks,

 

Soha..

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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:

 


Soha Radwan
 

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 


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

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:42 PM soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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. 





On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 7:31 pm, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders]
 

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@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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." 

 

Cheers,

Douglas Weidner

Chief CKM Instructor

KM Institute

 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Bill Kaplan bill@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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

 

 

 

 

  

 

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

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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.

 

Many thanks,

 

Soha..

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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:

 


Douglas Weidner
 

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

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 1:09 PM soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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 


On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 9:55 pm, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders
 

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

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:42 PM soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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. 





On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 7:31 pm, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders]
 

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@... [sikmleaders] <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@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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." 

 

Cheers,

Douglas Weidner

Chief CKM Instructor

KM Institute

 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Bill Kaplan bill@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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

 

 

 

 

  

 

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

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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.

 

Many thanks,

 

Soha..

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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:

 


Soha Radwan
 

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@... [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

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 1:09 PM soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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 


On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 9:55 pm, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders
 

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

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:42 PM soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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. 





On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 7:31 pm, Douglas Weidner douglas.weidner@... [sikmleaders]
 

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@... [sikmleaders] <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@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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." 

 

Cheers,

Douglas Weidner

Chief CKM Instructor

KM Institute

 

 

 

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Bill Kaplan bill@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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

 

 

 

 

  

 

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

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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.

 

Many thanks,

 

Soha..

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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:

 


Douglas Weidner
 
Edited

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



Frank Guerino
 

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

 

 

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

 


Murray Jennex
 

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


-----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

 

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Bill Kaplan bill@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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
 
 
 
 
  
 
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com
 
 
 
From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@yahoogroups..com>
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.
 
Many thanks,
 
Soha.
 
 
 
 
 
On Sunday, 13 January 2019, 21:50:52 GMT+4, Jeff Stemke jstemke@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> 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:
 



Soha Radwan
 

Thanks a lot Frank

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

 

 

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