Topics

ISO 30401 - analysis of changes in final standard #ISO-KM-Standard


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi all,

I recently completed a review of all changes made to the ISO 30401 KM standard between the draft version released in 2017 and its final publication in October 2018, and have summarised my findings here:
https://realkm.com/2019/01/21/evaluating-iso-30401-standard-part-1-what-has-changed-since-the-draft/

I will be releasing several more articles with more detailed analysis, but based on a fairly superficial reading I am now cautiously optimistic about the standard in its current form. Definitely an improvement on the draft.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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


Patrick Lambe
 

Thanks for this Stephen - how do you feel about the treatment of “culture” vis a vis your initial reservations?

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:00 PM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Hi all,

I recently completed a review of all changes made to the ISO 30401 KM standard between the draft version released in 2017 and its final publication in October 2018, and have summarised my findings here:
https://realkm.com/2019/01/21/evaluating-iso-30401-standard-part-1-what-has-changed-since-the-draft/

I will be releasing several more articles with more detailed analysis, but based on a fairly superficial reading I am now cautiously optimistic about the standard in its current form. Definitely an improvement on the draft.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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



Arthur Shelley
 

Hi Patrick and Stephen,

 

Stephen, thank you for your thorough analysis of what “made it into” ISO30401 and what did not.
This is an important review and thanks Patrick for asking for a deeper reflection in retrospect.

 

There is no doubt that it is impossible to write a KM standard that suits all contexts for everyone. As KMers, we all know that we ourselves do not even agree on what KM actually is (so imagine what those outside KM will perceive it to be). This is why the ISO KM standard was written as a principles based standard - to share elements of what is included in a good KM program, without being prescriptive about how and the specific why for you (because there are very contextual).

 

As a knowledge profession we are far better off with a document like this as a foundation, than a total lack of international agreement on why our discipline is so important to all areas of professional pursuit.
Enjoy using it to enhance your business and helping others to do so.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne

Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

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

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au 

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 3:07 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Cc: KM for Development
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - analysis of changes in final standard [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Patrick Lambe included below]

Thanks for this Stephen - how do you feel about the treatment of “culture” vis a vis your initial reservations?

 

P

 

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383





twitter: @plambesg



Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:00 PM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

 

Hi all,

I recently completed a review of all changes made to the ISO 30401 KM standard between the draft version released in 2017 and its final publication in October 2018, and have summarised my findings here:
https://realkm.com/2019/01/21/evaluating-iso-30401-standard-part-1-what-has-changed-since-the-draft/

I will be releasing several more articles with more detailed analysis, but based on a fairly superficial reading I am now cautiously optimistic about the standard in its current form. Definitely an improvement on the draft.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

 

 


Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Arthur

As you know, I am a supporter of this standard. Like you, I am also keenly aware of its limitations. 

I do think we have to be clear that one of the limitations is that on the one hand it IS a prescriptive standard and yet because of the complexity of the domain, it lacks specificity and has some ambiguity (meaning alternate/competing interpretations of some requirements are quite possible, and there is insufficient guidance on HOW to meet the prescriptive “shall” requirements). 

These factors will make it relatively easy to check off compliance on paper but not necessarily capture effective/ineffective practice for that organisation. In the standards and audit literature this is known as a “decoupling effect” where the standard focuses on what can be easily measured, but those things don’t necessarily reflect real (but invisible to measurement) effects in the environment. This is why I was curious about Stephen’s reflections on the culture piece, because I think this section of the standard is particularly vulnerable to decoupling.

I think these limitations will govern how the standard might best be used, and where it will be less useful. I do NOT myself think it will be useful as an external audit instrument (e.g. as a standard for external assessors to mark compliance in the traditional ISO sense) - simply because apart from the decoupling effect, external ISO assessors are unlikely to have in depth experience of the nuances of KM, and will certainly not have in-depth knowledge of the internal contextual drivers that influence what will make effective KM or ineffective KM in specific organisation contexts.

I think it COULD be useful as an internal audit instrument for internal KM teams who have that experience and internal knowledge to guide how they do KM. I think it COULD be useful as an educational/persuasion tool for internal stakeholders. Its compatibility with other ISO management system standards will make it easier to connect KM to other management systems such as Quality, Risk, Innovation etc. I took a set of reflections from David Skyrme made back in 2002, when the question of standards first raised its head, and developed his set of benefits into a set applied to this standard. You’ll find them towards the end of this slide set for a talk on the standard that I gave in Singapore last week http://www.iskosg.org/iso_30401_lambe.html

Best wishes

Patrick

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:43 PM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Hi Patrick and Stephen,

 

Stephen, thank you for your thorough analysis of what “made it into” ISO30401 and what did not. 
This is an important review and thanks Patrick for asking for a deeper reflection in retrospect.

 

There is no doubt that it is impossible to write a KM standard that suits all contexts for everyone.. As KMers, we all know that we ourselves do not even agree on what KM actually is (so imagine what those outside KM will perceive it to be). This is why the ISO KM standard was written as a principles based standard - to share elements of what is included in a good KM program, without being prescriptive about how and the specific why for you (because there are very contextual).

 

As a knowledge profession we are far better off with a document like this as a foundation, than a total lack of international agreement on why our discipline is so important to all areas of professional pursuit. 
Enjoy using it to enhance your business and helping others to do so.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne

Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

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

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au  

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@...> 
Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 3:07 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Cc: KM for Development <km4dev-l@...>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - analysis of changes in final standard [1 Attachment]

 

  

[Attachment(s) from Patrick Lambe included below]

Thanks for this Stephen - how do you feel about the treatment of “culture” vis a vis your initial reservations?

 

P

 

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383





twitter: @plambesg



Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:00 PM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

 

Hi all,

I recently completed a review of all changes made to the ISO 30401 KM standard between the draft version released in 2017 and its final publication in October 2018, and have summarised my findings here:
https://realkm.com/2019/01/21/evaluating-iso-30401-standard-part-1-what-has-changed-since-the-draft/

I will be releasing several more articles with more detailed analysis, but based on a fairly superficial reading I am now cautiously optimistic about the standard in its current form. Definitely an improvement on the draft.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

 

 




Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Patrick,

I am going to write up a longer piece about this, but I do think the culture references remain the most problematic part of the standard.

It's not that a "KM culture" can't exist, or even that the aspirational attributes of such a culture aren't laudable -- in theory at least.

My concern is that this part of the standard is the most likely to result in a KM system design that misses the mark, striving for a utopian organisational model that cannot or will not be achieved due to real-life constraints.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 22/01/2019 3:06 pm, Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

Thanks for this Stephen - how do you feel about the treatment of “culture” vis a vis your initial reservations?


P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:00 PM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Hi all,

I recently completed a review of all changes made to the ISO 30401 KM standard between the draft version released in 2017 and its final publication in October 2018, and have summarised my findings here:
https://realkm.com/2019/01/21/evaluating-iso-30401-standard-part-1-what-has-changed-since-the-draft/

I will be releasing several more articles with more detailed analysis, but based on a fairly superficial reading I am now cautiously optimistic about the standard in its current form. Definitely an improvement on the draft.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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



Arthur Shelley
 

Thanks Patrick,

 

Your insights are valuable and relevant for all on this forum (as always). You correctly highlight the limitations and risks associated with this standard. That said, I believe we needed to take this step and proceed with the right intent (to add value to and enhance the performance of organisations through better knowledge informed decisions).  I believe than not moving toward (better) standard only delays the inevitable. Most products are not perfect in their first iteration and we have to start somewhere.

 

If organisations operate with this intent, they will improve. If they operate with the intent to deceive (pretend they are “compliant” rather than make every effort to do so) they will destroy value. We saw this in the release of the ISO quality standards through the 1980’s. It was bad for a while and then the shonky practices eventually got weeded out. ISO9000 made a significant shift in the perception of what quality can be. Poor quality operators do not survive long now as quality is an expected part of all organisations.

 

I think in time, a great KM auditor will be the connection between the what (in the standard) and the how (if the stated actions and processes are truly adequate for that specific context). This is where knowledge and judgement (lower AND upper levels of Blooms hierarchy of Learning) are highly applicable and why KM remains in the people domain far more than in process. So a good auditor should be a role model of applied KM principles when doing the assessment.  Well qualified and experienced people can make quality judgements about the suitability and sustainability of processes and interactions in context and determine if they are appropriate or not. Just like higher learning – this cannot be well achieved through a “tick the box” set of measures, especially generic ones.

 

The challenge with this, is getting highly experienced auditors to be able to make quality judgements and providing them with sufficient time. Without this it is challenging to properly assess whether the measures are actually adequately and accurately implemented. However, this has always been the challenge with any standard. The added issue with KM standard is that there are MANY ways to implement your KM approach and this is impossible to be fully prescriptive with across all contexts. I can see that many consultancies may “sell their services” providing external assessment and audits, but the quality of their assessments reflects the experiences of their people.  The real question is how do we (the Knowledge Profession) develop sufficient experienced assessors to make the best judgements,

I asked his of Standards Australian and they do not have an answer. I see that BSI is investing heavily in assessor training and this is a good thing. Without sufficient good assessors, external assessments will be too expensive, because of high demand for limited qualified people. As usual high quality learning is a significant part of the solution options.

 

It is not an easy path forward and fraught with dangers of people looking for a quick profit (high demand for help, but limited numbers of people qualified to do so well). I am hopeful that the Knowledge Profession can practice what they preach and collaborate to ensure the fledgling standard is helped to build a good reputation. It definitely need our help and will fail without us taking ownership and support off it, until it becomes more robust and starts delivering value.

 

This reminds me of the challenges facing parents who have a child with some disabilities- we can support and help it to flourish or we reject it (as sometimes happens by one parent or the other, breaking up relationships).

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne

Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

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

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au 

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 4:14 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - analysis of changes in final standard [1 Attachment]

 

 

[Attachment(s) from Patrick Lambe included below]

Hi Arthur

 

As you know, I am a supporter of this standard. Like you, I am also keenly aware of its limitations. 

 

I do think we have to be clear that one of the limitations is that on the one hand it IS a prescriptive standard and yet because of the complexity of the domain, it lacks specificity and has some ambiguity (meaning alternate/competing interpretations of some requirements are quite possible, and there is insufficient guidance on HOW to meet the prescriptive “shall” requirements). 

 

These factors will make it relatively easy to check off compliance on paper but not necessarily capture effective/ineffective practice for that organisation. In the standards and audit literature this is known as a “decoupling effect” where the standard focuses on what can be easily measured, but those things don’t necessarily reflect real (but invisible to measurement) effects in the environment. This is why I was curious about Stephen’s reflections on the culture piece, because I think this section of the standard is particularly vulnerable to decoupling.

 

I think these limitations will govern how the standard might best be used, and where it will be less useful. I do NOT myself think it will be useful as an external audit instrument (e.g. as a standard for external assessors to mark compliance in the traditional ISO sense) - simply because apart from the decoupling effect, external ISO assessors are unlikely to have in depth experience of the nuances of KM, and will certainly not have in-depth knowledge of the internal contextual drivers that influence what will make effective KM or ineffective KM in specific organisation contexts.

 

I think it COULD be useful as an internal audit instrument for internal KM teams who have that experience and internal knowledge to guide how they do KM. I think it COULD be useful as an educational/persuasion tool for internal stakeholders. Its compatibility with other ISO management system standards will make it easier to connect KM to other management systems such as Quality, Risk, Innovation etc. I took a set of reflections from David Skyrme made back in 2002, when the question of standards first raised its head, and developed his set of benefits into a set applied to this standard. You’ll find them towards the end of this slide set for a talk on the standard that I gave in Singapore last week http://www.iskosg.org/iso_30401_lambe.html

 

Best wishes

 

Patrick

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383





twitter: @plambesg



Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:43 PM, 'Arthur' arthur@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

 

Hi Patrick and Stephen,

 

Stephen, thank you for your thorough analysis of what “made it into” ISO30401 and what did not. 
This is an important review and thanks Patrick for asking for a deeper reflection in retrospect.

 

There is no doubt that it is impossible to write a KM standard that suits all contexts for everyone.. As KMers, we all know that we ourselves do not even agree on what KM actually is (so imagine what those outside KM will perceive it to be). This is why the ISO KM standard was written as a principles based standard - to share elements of what is included in a good KM program, without being prescriptive about how and the specific why for you (because there are very contextual).

 

As a knowledge profession we are far better off with a document like this as a foundation, than a total lack of international agreement on why our discipline is so important to all areas of professional pursuit. 
Enjoy using it to enhance your business and helping others to do so.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne

Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

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

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au  

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

 

From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@...> 
Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 3:07 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Cc: KM for Development <km4dev-l@...>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - analysis of changes in final standard [1 Attachment]

 

  

[Attachment(s) from Patrick Lambe included below]

Thanks for this Stephen - how do you feel about the treatment of “culture” vis a vis your initial reservations?

 

P

 

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383






twitter: @plambesg




Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:00 PM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

 

 

Hi all,

I recently completed a review of all changes made to the ISO 30401 KM standard between the draft version released in 2017 and its final publication in October 2018, and have summarised my findings here:
https://realkm.com/2019/01/21/evaluating-iso-30401-standard-part-1-what-has-changed-since-the-draft/

I will be releasing several more articles with more detailed analysis, but based on a fairly superficial reading I am now cautiously optimistic about the standard in its current form. Definitely an improvement on the draft.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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

 

 

 

 


Patrick Lambe
 

Thanks Stephen that’s helpful.

My own concern with the culture segment is not so much that it is necessarily utopian, because it is quite capable of being interpreted in a non-utopian way as well.

My concern is that from a compliance point of view, it is possible to perform the actions required or suggested in the standard, and therefore “comply” on paper with the standard, without actually impacting the culture at all. The visible actions that can be checked off don’t necessarily have any effect on culture, nor is there a way of demonstrating that effect.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 22 Jan 2019, at 2:43 PM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:

[Attachment(s) from Stephen Bounds included below]

Hi Patrick,

I am going to write up a longer piece about this, but I do think the culture references remain the most problematic part of the standard.

It's not that a "KM culture" can't exist, or even that the aspirational attributes of such a culture aren't laudable -- in theory at least.

My concern is that this part of the standard is the most likely to result in a KM system design that misses the mark, striving for a utopian organisational model that cannot or will not be achieved due to real-life constraints.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 22/01/2019 3:06 pm, Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
 

Thanks for this Stephen - how do you feel about the treatment of “culture” vis a vis your initial reservations?


P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383



twitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:00 PM, Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...> wrote:


Hi all,

I recently completed a review of all changes made to the ISO 30401 KM standard between the draft version released in 2017 and its final publication in October 2018, and have summarised my findings here:
https://realkm.com/2019/01/21/evaluating-iso-30401-standard-part-1-what-has-changed-since-the-draft/

I will be releasing several more articles with more detailed analysis, but based on a fairly superficial reading I am now cautiously optimistic about the standard in its current form. Definitely an improvement on the draft.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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





Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Arthur

I do think it is in principle possible to have “great” KM auditors as external ISO assessors (i.e. for summative assessment). However the political and commercial drivers for that ISO certification service are somewhat inimical to the development of the deep expertise you describe. The research on auditing against ambiguous standards shows clearly that auditors have no incentive to probe deeply when assessing against ambiguous standards. So not impossible, but unlikely.

Not that we shouldn’t try, but we should be realistic about the challenges.

I’m still much more of a mind that the use of the standard by internal teams for formative rather than summative assessment is going to be the most productive use, at least in the short to mid term.

I also think, somewhat ironically, that wider knowledge auditing / KM assessment techniques (such as knowledge mapping) could be useful in meeting the requirements of the standard. For example, one of the standard’s requirements is that the organisation should focus on the most critical knowledge domains for its business and stakeholder needs. Established techniques like knowledge mapping and knowledge inventory analysis can help to guide how that requirement is met. In that scenario, the standard is a guide to implementation, and other auditing/assessment techniques help guide action towards “healthy” action.

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383




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

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com

On 22 Jan 2019, at 2:50 PM, 'Arthur' arthur@organizationalzoo.com [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Thanks Patrick,



Your insights are valuable and relevant for all on this forum (as always). You correctly highlight the limitations and risks associated with this standard. That said, I believe we needed to take this step and proceed with the right intent (to add value to and enhance the performance of organisations through better knowledge informed decisions). I believe than not moving toward (better) standard only delays the inevitable. Most products are not perfect in their first iteration and we have to start somewhere.



If organisations operate with this intent, they will improve. If they operate with the intent to deceive (pretend they are “compliant” rather than make every effort to do so) they will destroy value. We saw this in the release of the ISO quality standards through the 1980’s. It was bad for a while and then the shonky practices eventually got weeded out. ISO9000 made a significant shift in the perception of what quality can be. Poor quality operators do not survive long now as quality is an expected part of all organisations.



I think in time, a great KM auditor will be the connection between the what (in the standard) and the how (if the stated actions and processes are truly adequate for that specific context). This is where knowledge and judgement (lower AND upper levels of Blooms hierarchy of Learning) are highly applicable and why KM remains in the people domain far more than in process. So a good auditor should be a role model of applied KM principles when doing the assessment. Well qualified and experienced people can make quality judgements about the suitability and sustainability of processes and interactions in context and determine if they are appropriate or not. Just like higher learning – this cannot be well achieved through a “tick the box” set of measures, especially generic ones.



The challenge with this, is getting highly experienced auditors to be able to make quality judgements and providing them with sufficient time. Without this it is challenging to properly assess whether the measures are actually adequately and accurately implemented. However, this has always been the challenge with any standard. The added issue with KM standard is that there are MANY ways to implement your KM approach and this is impossible to be fully prescriptive with across all contexts. I can see that many consultancies may “sell their services” providing external assessment and audits, but the quality of their assessments reflects the experiences of their people. The real question is how do we (the Knowledge Profession) develop sufficient experienced assessors to make the best judgements,

I asked his of Standards Australian and they do not have an answer. I see that BSI is investing heavily in assessor training and this is a good thing. Without sufficient good assessors, external assessments will be too expensive, because of high demand for limited qualified people. As usual high quality learning is a significant part of the solution options.



It is not an easy path forward and fraught with dangers of people looking for a quick profit (high demand for help, but limited numbers of people qualified to do so well). I am hopeful that the Knowledge Profession can practice what they preach and collaborate to ensure the fledgling standard is helped to build a good reputation. It definitely need our help and will fail without us taking ownership and support off it, until it becomes more robust and starts delivering value.



This reminds me of the challenges facing parents who have a child with some disabilities- we can support and help it to flourish or we reject it (as sometimes happens by one parent or the other, breaking up relationships).



Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne <http://www.creativemelbourne.com.au/>
Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion <http://www.businessexpertpress.com/books/knowledge-succession-sustained-capability-growth-through-strategic-projects> Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

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

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

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/ambassadors/>
Mb.. +61 413 047 408 Skype: Arthur.Shelley Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168
Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/>
Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/blog>
<image001.jpg> <http://www.creativemelbourne.com.au/cm18/>


From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 4:14 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - analysis of changes in final standard [1 Attachment]





[Attachment(s) <x-msg://132/#TopText> from Patrick Lambe included below]

Hi Arthur



As you know, I am a supporter of this standard. Like you, I am also keenly aware of its limitations.



I do think we have to be clear that one of the limitations is that on the one hand it IS a prescriptive standard and yet because of the complexity of the domain, it lacks specificity and has some ambiguity (meaning alternate/competing interpretations of some requirements are quite possible, and there is insufficient guidance on HOW to meet the prescriptive “shall” requirements).



These factors will make it relatively easy to check off compliance on paper but not necessarily capture effective/ineffective practice for that organisation. In the standards and audit literature this is known as a “decoupling effect” where the standard focuses on what can be easily measured, but those things don’t necessarily reflect real (but invisible to measurement) effects in the environment. This is why I was curious about Stephen’s reflections on the culture piece, because I think this section of the standard is particularly vulnerable to decoupling.



I think these limitations will govern how the standard might best be used, and where it will be less useful. I do NOT myself think it will be useful as an external audit instrument (e.g. as a standard for external assessors to mark compliance in the traditional ISO sense) - simply because apart from the decoupling effect, external ISO assessors are unlikely to have in depth experience of the nuances of KM, and will certainly not have in-depth knowledge of the internal contextual drivers that influence what will make effective KM or ineffective KM in specific organisation contexts.



I think it COULD be useful as an internal audit instrument for internal KM teams who have that experience and internal knowledge to guide how they do KM. I think it COULD be useful as an educational/persuasion tool for internal stakeholders. Its compatibility with other ISO management system standards will make it easier to connect KM to other management systems such as Quality, Risk, Innovation etc. I took a set of reflections from David Skyrme made back in 2002, when the question of standards first raised its head, and developed his set of benefits into a set applied to this standard. You’ll find them towards the end of this slide set for a talk on the standard that I gave in Singapore last week http://www.iskosg.org/iso_30401_lambe.html


Best wishes



Patrick



Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383


<image003.jpg>





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




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


On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:43 PM, 'Arthur' arthur@organizationalzoo.com <mailto:arthur@organizationalzoo.com> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:





Hi Patrick and Stephen,



Stephen, thank you for your thorough analysis of what “made it into” ISO30401 and what did not.
This is an important review and thanks Patrick for asking for a deeper reflection in retrospect.



There is no doubt that it is impossible to write a KM standard that suits all contexts for everyone.. As KMers, we all know that we ourselves do not even agree on what KM actually is (so imagine what those outside KM will perceive it to be). This is why the ISO KM standard was written as a principles based standard - to share elements of what is included in a good KM program, without being prescriptive about how and the specific why for you (because there are very contextual).



As a knowledge profession we are far better off with a document like this as a foundation, than a total lack of international agreement on why our discipline is so important to all areas of professional pursuit.
Enjoy using it to enhance your business and helping others to do so.



Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne <http://www.creativemelbourne.com.au/>
Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion <http://www.businessexpertpress.com/books/knowledge-succession-sustained-capability-growth-through-strategic-projects> Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

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

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

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/ambassadors/>
Mb. +61 413 047 408 Skype: Arthur.Shelley Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168
Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/>
Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog <http://www.organizationalzoo.com/blog>
<image001.jpg> <http://www.creativemelbourne.com.au/cm18/>


From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 3:07 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: KM for Development <km4dev-l@dgroups.org <mailto:km4dev-l@dgroups.org>>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - analysis of changes in final standard [1 Attachment]





[Attachment(s) <x-msg://126/#TopText> from Patrick Lambe included below]

Thanks for this Stephen - how do you feel about the treatment of “culture” vis a vis your initial reservations?



P





Patrick Lambe

Partner

+65 62210383


<image003.jpg>






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





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


On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:00 PM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au <mailto:km@bounds.net.au> [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:





Hi all,

I recently completed a review of all changes made to the ISO 30401 KM standard between the draft version released in 2017 and its final publication in October 2018, and have summarised my findings here:
https://realkm.com/2019/01/21/evaluating-iso-30401-standard-part-1-what-has-changed-since-the-draft/
<https://realkm.com/2019/01/21/evaluating-iso-30401-standard-part-1-what-has-changed-since-the-draft/>
I will be releasing several more articles with more detailed analysis, but based on a fairly superficial reading I am now cautiously optimistic about the standard in its current form. Definitely an improvement on the draft.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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









Murray Jennex
 

I've been on an engineering standards committee for over 25 years and have observed much behavior with standards.  For the most part I agree with Arthur below and will caution everyone that a prescriptive standard is difficult to impossible to make correct.  There is just too much variation in organizations and cultures.  That said, the purpose of a standard is to say what needs to be done, not how to do it and as long as the KM standard sticks to that it should do well.
Yes, organizations will always have questions about what they need to do and consultants will tell them what they want them to do, but to be honest, it is really up to ISO how all this goes down.  ISO needs to endorse those organizations that implement the standard well and publish it so that others can see what works.  Another option is to have an implementation guide that is clear in stating that this is A WAY of doing KM that is acceptable, but is not THE ONLY WAY of doing KM.  There can be several guides published and I can see many consultants wanting to publish THEIR GUIDE ON HOW TO DO KM.  My hope is that ISO does not endorse the guides, endorses only the standard, and recognizes those organizations that do KM well.  This is probably the best guidance that can be given.....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Arthur' arthur@organizationalzoo.com [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 21, 2019 10:50 pm
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - analysis of changes in final standard

#yiv3541490845 #yiv3541490845 -- #yiv3541490845 .yiv3541490845ygrp-photo-title{ clear:both;font-size:smaller;min-height:15px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;width:75px;} #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845ygrp-photo{ background-position:center;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:white;border:1px solid black;min-height:62px;width:62px;} #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845photo-title a, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845photo-title a:active, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845photo-title a:hover, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845photo-title a:visited { text-decoration:none; } #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845attach-table div.yiv3541490845attach-row { clear:both;} #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845attach-table div.yiv3541490845attach-row div { float:left;} #yiv3541490845 p { clear:both;padding:15px 0 3px 0;overflow:hidden;} #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845ygrp-file { width:30px;} #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845attach-table div.yiv3541490845attach-row div div a { text-decoration:none;} #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845attach-table div.yiv3541490845attach-row div div span { font-weight:normal;} #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845ygrp-file-title { font-weight:bold;} #yiv3541490845 #yiv3541490845 #yiv3541490845 #yiv3541490845 -- _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Georgia;panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #yiv3541490845 #yiv3541490845 p.yiv3541490845MsoNormal, #yiv3541490845 li.yiv3541490845MsoNormal, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;} #yiv3541490845 a:link, #yiv3541490845 span.yiv3541490845MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv3541490845 a:visited, #yiv3541490845 span.yiv3541490845MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv3541490845 code {} #yiv3541490845 pre {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;} #yiv3541490845 tt {} #yiv3541490845 p.yiv3541490845msonormal0, #yiv3541490845 li.yiv3541490845msonormal0, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845msonormal0 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;} #yiv3541490845 span.yiv3541490845apple-converted-space {} #yiv3541490845 span.yiv3541490845HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;} #yiv3541490845 p.yiv3541490845attach, #yiv3541490845 li.yiv3541490845attach, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845attach {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:9.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;} #yiv3541490845 p.yiv3541490845bold, #yiv3541490845 li.yiv3541490845bold, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845bold {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;font-weight:bold;} #yiv3541490845 p.yiv3541490845green, #yiv3541490845 li.yiv3541490845green, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845green {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;color:#628C2A;} #yiv3541490845 p.yiv3541490845replbq, #yiv3541490845 li.yiv3541490845replbq, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845replbq {margin:3.0pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;} #yiv3541490845 p.yiv3541490845ad, #yiv3541490845 li.yiv3541490845ad, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845ad {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;} #yiv3541490845 p.yiv3541490845underline, #yiv3541490845 li.yiv3541490845underline, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845underline {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;} #yiv3541490845 span.yiv3541490845yshortcuts {} #yiv3541490845 p.yiv3541490845ad1, #yiv3541490845 li.yiv3541490845ad1, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845ad1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;} #yiv3541490845 p.yiv3541490845ad2, #yiv3541490845 li.yiv3541490845ad2, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845ad2 {margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;} #yiv3541490845 p.yiv3541490845underline1, #yiv3541490845 li.yiv3541490845underline1, #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845underline1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv3541490845 span.yiv3541490845yshortcuts1 {font-family:sans-serif;font-weight:bold;} #yiv3541490845 span.yiv3541490845yshortcuts2 {font-family:sans-serif;font-weight:normal;} #yiv3541490845 span.yiv3541490845EmailStyle37 {font-family:sans-serif;} #yiv3541490845 .yiv3541490845MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;} #yiv3541490845 div.yiv3541490845WordSection1 {} #yiv3541490845 _filtered #yiv3541490845 {} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv3541490845 {font-family:Wingdings;} #yiv3541490845 ol {margin-bottom:0cm;} #yiv3541490845 ul {margin-bottom:0cm;} #yiv3541490845

Thanks Patrick,  Your insights are valuable and relevant for all on this forum (as always). You correctly highlight the limitations and risks associated with this standard. That said, I believe we needed to take this step and proceed with the right intent (to add value to and enhance the performance of organisations through better knowledge informed decisions).  I believe than not moving toward (better) standard only delays the inevitable. Most products are not perfect in their first iteration and we have to start somewhere.  If organisations operate with this intent, they will improve. If they operate with the intent to deceive (pretend they are “compliant” rather than make every effort to do so) they will destroy value. We saw this in the release of the ISO quality standards through the 1980’s. It was bad for a while and then the shonky practices eventually got weeded out. ISO9000 made a significant shift in the perception of what quality can be. Poor quality operators do not survive long now as quality is an expected part of all organisations.  I think in time, a great KM auditor will be the connection between the what (in the standard) and the how (if the stated actions and processes are truly adequate for that specific context). This is where knowledge and judgement (lower AND upper levels of Blooms hierarchy of Learning) are highly applicable and why KM remains in the people domain far more than in process. So a good auditor should be a role model of applied KM principles when doing the assessment.  Well qualified and experienced people can make quality judgements about the suitability and sustainability of processes and interactions in context and determine if they are appropriate or not. Just like higher learning – this cannot be well achieved through a “tick the box” set of measures, especially generic ones.  The challenge with this, is getting highly experienced auditors to be able to make quality judgements and providing them with sufficient time. Without this it is challenging to properly assess whether the measures are actually adequately and accurately implemented. However, this has always been the challenge with any standard. The added issue with KM standard is that there are MANY ways to implement your KM approach and this is impossible to be fully prescriptive with across all contexts. I can see that many consultancies may “sell their services” providing external assessment and audits, but the quality of their assessments reflects the experiences of their people.  The real question is how do we (the Knowledge Profession) develop sufficient experienced assessors to make the best judgements,I asked his of Standards Australian and they do not have an answer. I see that BSI is investing heavily in assessor training and this is a good thing. Without sufficient good assessors, external assessments will be too expensive, because of high demand for limited qualified people. As usual high quality learning is a significant part of the solution options.  It is not an easy path forward and fraught with dangers of people looking for a quick profit (high demand for help, but limited numbers of people qualified to do so well). I am hopeful that the Knowledge Profession can practice what they preach and collaborate to ensure the fledgling standard is helped to build a good reputation. It definitely need our help and will fail without us taking ownership and support off it, until it becomes more robust and starts delivering value.  This reminds me of the challenges facing parents who have a child with some disabilities- we can support and help it to flourish or we reject it (as sometimes happens by one parent or the other, breaking up relationships).  RegardsArthur ShelleyProducer: Creative MelbourneAuthor: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects Earlier Books: The Organizational Zoo (2007) & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader (2009)Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au  Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors NetworkMb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @MetaphorageLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168 Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog  From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 4:14 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - analysis of changes in final standard [1 Attachment]    [Attachment(s) from Patrick Lambe included below] Hi Arthur  As you know, I am a supporter of this standard. Like you, I am also keenly aware of its limitations.   I do think we have to be clear that one of the limitations is that on the one hand it IS a prescriptive standard and yet because of the complexity of the domain, it lacks specificity and has some ambiguity (meaning alternate/competing interpretations of some requirements are quite possible, and there is insufficient guidance on HOW to meet the prescriptive “shall” requirements).   These factors will make it relatively easy to check off compliance on paper but not necessarily capture effective/ineffective practice for that organisation. In the standards and audit literature this is known as a “decoupling effect” where the standard focuses on what can be easily measured, but those things don’t necessarily reflect real (but invisible to measurement) effects in the environment. This is why I was curious about Stephen’s reflections on the culture piece, because I think this section of the standard is particularly vulnerable to decoupling.  I think these limitations will govern how the standard might best be used, and where it will be less useful. I do NOT myself think it will be useful as an external audit instrument (e.g. as a standard for external assessors to mark compliance in the traditional ISO sense) - simply because apart from the decoupling effect, external ISO assessors are unlikely to have in depth experience of the nuances of KM, and will certainly not have in-depth knowledge of the internal contextual drivers that influence what will make effective KM or ineffective KM in specific organisation contexts.  I think it COULD be useful as an internal audit instrument for internal KM teams who have that experience and internal knowledge to guide how they do KM. I think it COULD be useful as an educational/persuasion tool for internal stakeholders. Its compatibility with other ISO management system standards will make it easier to connect KM to other management systems such as Quality, Risk, Innovation etc. I took a set of reflections from David Skyrme made back in 2002, when the question of standards first raised its head, and developed his set of benefits into a set applied to this standard. You’ll find them towards the end of this slide set for a talk on the standard that I gave in Singapore last week http://www.iskosg.org/iso_30401_lambe.html  Best wishes  Patrick  Patrick LambePartner+65 62210383



website: www..straitsknowledge.comweblog: www.greenchameleon.comtwitter: @plambesg

Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com  
On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:43 PM, 'Arthur' arthur@organizationalzoo.com [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:    Hi Patrick and Stephen, Stephen, thank you for your thorough analysis of what “made it into” ISO30401 and what did not. 
This is an important review and thanks Patrick for asking for a deeper reflection in retrospect. There is no doubt that it is impossible to write a KM standard that suits all contexts for everyone.. As KMers, we all know that we ourselves do not even agree on what KM actually is (so imagine what those outside KM will perceive it to be). This is why the ISO KM standard was written as a principles based standard - to share elements of what is included in a good KM program, without being prescriptive about how and the specific why for you (because there are very contextual). As a knowledge profession we are far better off with a document like this as a foundation, than a total lack of international agreement on why our discipline is so important to all areas of professional pursuit. 
Enjoy using it to enhance your business and helping others to do so. RegardsArthur ShelleyProducer: Creative MelbourneAuthor: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projectsEarlier Books: The Organizational Zoo (2007) & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader (2009)Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au  Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors NetworkMb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @MetaphorageLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4229168Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.comBlog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog<image001.jpg> From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 3:07 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
Cc: KM for Development <km4dev-l@dgroups.org>
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] ISO 30401 - analysis of changes in final standard [1 Attachment]   [Attachment(s) from Patrick Lambe included below]Thanks for this Stephen - how do you feel about the treatment of “culture” vis a vis your initial reservations? P  Patrick LambePartner+65 62210383
<image003.jpg>



website: www...straitsknowledge.comweblog: www.greenchameleon.comtwitter: @plambesg


Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com 
On 22 Jan 2019, at 12:00 PM, Stephen Bounds km@bounds.net.au [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:  Hi all,I recently completed a review of all changes made to the ISO 30401 KM standard between the draft version released in 2017 and its final publication in October 2018, and have summarised my findings here:
https://realkm.com/2019/01/21/evaluating-iso-30401-standard-part-1-what-has-changed-since-the-draft/
I will be releasing several more articles with more detailed analysis, but based on a fairly superficial reading I am now cautiously optimistic about the standard in its current form. Definitely an improvement on the draft.Cheers,
Stephen.====================================Stephen BoundsExecutive, Information ManagementCordeltaE: stephen.bounds@cordelta.comM: 0401 829 096====================================