Identification of Potential Business Value #value
|
Robert L. Bogue
Friends –
It was great seeing so many folks last week in Cincinnati.
I’m pondering a problem for a whitepaper I’m writing and I’d love folks thoughts on it. The short version of the question is “How do you assess the potential business value of an information asset?”
The longer form is in the context of how we need to help to separate the wheat from the chaff so that we can keep the information is the most valuable and discard (through retention schedules) the information that we no longer need.
I’m thinking about some interesting challenges. Anything that has been converted from implicit knowledge to explicit should be elevated because of the investment that was made – in other words someone felt like this was important enough to convert it into an explicit piece. I’m not entirely sure that I could separate the explicit from the implicit at scale and would love ideas on how to do this.
Similarly, I was pondering video interviews. Last week we discussed that uploading a video to Microsoft Stream will automatically generate closed captioning which improves it’s findability. Between that and the ubiquity of cell phones that can shoot video, it’s a great way to capture knowledge and to make it findable. However, I began pondering whether we should retain the video file for the same length of time as the captions. Do they have the same value? If the information is high value one would expect that it might be converted into an explicit knowledge asset. If it’s of lower value, then perhaps the best answer is to connect with the person who has the knowledge – which can be done with just the transcript. Thoughts?
I’d love to hear folks thoughts along this line as I try to clarify my thinking.
Thanks.
Rob
------------------- Robert L. Bogue O: (317) 844-5310 M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog Are you burned out? https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out it.
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lambe
Hi Robert
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard). Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e.g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets. In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument. You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application. Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered). I hope that does not muddy the water over-much! P Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383 website: www.straitsknowledge.com weblog: www.greenchameleon.com twitter: @plambesg Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
|
Murray Jennex
Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so. So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there. I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on. From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization. The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values. No one story fits all. My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated. I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context. So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific. If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex
Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so. So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there. I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on. From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization. The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values. No one story fits all. My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated. I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context. So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific. If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex -----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders] To: sikmleaders Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 7:27 pm Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value Hi Robert The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).
Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e..g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.
In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.
You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application..
Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered).
I hope that does not muddy the water over-much!
P
Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383
website: www.straitsknowledge.com
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
twitter: @plambesg
Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
|
Stephen Bounds
Hi Patrick,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Would you mind if we polished this up slightly and published it on RealKM under your byline? I think it's an extremely thoughtful reflection that deserves more longevity and exposure :) Cheers, Stephen. ==================================== Stephen Bounds Executive, Information Management Cordelta E: stephen.bounds@... M: 0401 829 096 ==================================== On 15/08/2019 11:36 am, Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard). |
|
|
|
Great idea Stephen, Great content for Real KM magazine - such insights deserve to be findable by more people (and have a URL for cross reference in later dialogue).
To reinforce the importance of context, I have a small fun activity that may be useful for others: Ask your team/student/workgroup if they prefer a kilo of water or a kilo of gold.
The “natural reaction” of most is of course to choose the gold. The smart ones ask where they are before they make their decision (if understand the context in which the choice is being made). My answer to that question is you are lost in the middle of a vast desert. The “cocky” ones still insist on the gold stating they would get out of the situation to become rich and other more conservatives ones shift their answer. It is a great conversation starter about confidence, contextual knowledge in decision making and the ability to “bet your life” on complex situations. Usually stimulates great storytelling as well (around “real” situations they have been in or observed with good and suboptimal outcomes). This provides a conversational experience of a number of knowledge related interactions to provide solid learning outcomes in context.
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/in/arthurshelley/ Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog
From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Thursday, 15 August 2019 4:16 PM To: sikmleaders@... Cc: Bruce Boyes Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value
Hi Patrick, |
|
|
|
Douglas Weidner
Arthur, Excellent contribution, especially in a classroom setting when KM Metrics is the following topic. Douglas Weidner Exec Chairman, Chief CKM Instructor
|
|
|
|
Douglas Weidner
|
|
|
|
Douglas Weidner
Patrick, Excellent contribution. I really appreciate the historical context. Sadly, I have found, many of today's students don't want to hear 'history'. In other words, in my humble opinion, it seems they really don't want to know. Maybe they haven't been taught the need for such historical context, just as Murray's gold vs. water example - lacking context.
|
|
|
|
Hi Robert, You ask "How do you assess the potential business value of an information asset?" In return I ask "How does the business determine the potential value/utility?" What are key characteristics that the business utilizes to assess assets of importance, and to what level of importance? Your question can too easily become a theoretical one which will prompt theoretical answers. The most appropriate answer much be described in the context of the business, its issues, objectives and context. Having said that, I know the inherent temptation to want to develop a framework that could be applied/adapted to various contexts and numerous frameworks have been developed over the years as Patrick has described. While these frameworks are relevant to our understanding as KM practitioners, they are seldom useful for businesses. They are, IMHO, a reference resource for us like arrows in our professional quiver. Which framework(s) are most relevant to this business' context? How should I adapt the framework to this business' context and specific needs as expressed in the contract/assignment? There are many frameworks and models and they are all potentially useful, to us. The perfect framework is the one that we help the specific business develop to suit their own needs. Best Paul |
|
|
|
Frank Guerino
Hi Murray,
Something to consider as an extension to the concept of a “Story” is an actual “Business Case” with all its supporting details.
Companies like Amazon, Google, MS, and Apple all offer their employees the opportunity to pitch the value of their ideas/knowledge as fully developed business cases (BCs). Each BC must be extremely detailed and vetted. Users must understand competitive markets, cost of entry, Break Even Points, etc. And, if brought to a committee, the company acts as a Venture Capital company that (if the idea is approved) invests in the BC, providing not just funding but staff and access to resources that allows the owner of the BC to “run with it.”
In summary, employees are thought to think of a BC as a far more developed and detailed Story (based on an internal company template) that has been more thoroughly vetted for a higher probability of successful outcome.
My Best,
Frank -- Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so. So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there. I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on. From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization. The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values. No one story fits all. My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated.. I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context. So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific. If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex
-----Original Message-----
The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).
Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e..g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.
In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.
You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application..
Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered).
I hope that does not muddy the water over-much!
P
Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383 website: www.straitsknowledge.com weblog: www.greenchameleon.com twitter: @plambesg Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
|
Murray Jennex
agreed Frank but I'm not really talking about a business case. There are many instances where you have to value something, for instance in doing a risk assessment assets are identified and valued, many times we use a value story or statement to briefly explain how we came up with the value of the asset. A full BC is not needed or wanted, especially when you have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of assets (I did an inventory in 1999 where I had 600,000 + devices). I use value stories embedded in analyses and other reports to explain how certain numbers are generated. Basically when I say a value story I'm referring to a short paragraph that explains how a value or other number was generated. I see a BC as something used at the project or program level to explain the reasoning and value for doing the project or program....murray jennex -----Original Message----- From: Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders] To: SIKM Leaders Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2019 6:23 pm Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value Hi Murray,
Something to consider as an extension to the concept of a “Story” is an actual “Business Case” with all its supporting details.
Companies like Amazon, Google, MS, and Apple all offer their employees the opportunity to pitch the value of their ideas/knowledge as fully developed business cases (BCs). Each BC must be extremely detailed and vetted. Users must understand competitive markets, cost of entry, Break Even Points, etc. And, if brought to a committee, the company acts as a Venture Capital company that (if the idea is approved) invests in the BC, providing not just funding but staff and access to resources that allows the owner of the BC to “run with it.”
In summary, employees are thought to think of a BC as a far more developed and detailed Story (based on an internal company template) that has been more thoroughly vetted for a higher probability of successful outcome.
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: Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 12:51 AM To: SIKM Leaders Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so. So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there. I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on. From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization. The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values. No one story fits all. My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated.. I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context. So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific. If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders] To: sikmleaders Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 7:27 pm Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value Hi Robert The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).
Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e..g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.
In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.
You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application..
Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered).
I hope that does not muddy the water over-much!
P
Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383
website: www.straitsknowledge.com
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
twitter: @plambesg
Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
|
Robert L. Bogue
Paul –
I am still processing Patrick’s response since that will require some research and additional thinking. However, I wanted to respond to the framework question.
I’m not proposing that another framework be created. Nor am I proposing that I recommend a particular existing framework. I’m trying to create a broader point of view. The truth is that all information has value and it has risk. The information can lead us to the knowledge that we seek. It can be a set of tracks that let us know where the knowledge has gone. (i.e. who is walking around with it.) At the same time, anything we retain has risk in terms of it’s unintended release (either through an accidental case of an employee sharing or via a data breach). Information also has a risk-cost in the case of legal discovery.
In one of my other lives, I created a simple manual migration worksheet. The tendency for users is to just “lift and shift” everything that we have. We asked them to make the decision based on the time to move vs. the multiplication of the probability of reuse and the time/effort needed to recreate the information. It’s a simple framework that’s designed to put a structure to an objective problem. It’s the electronic equivalent of evaluating whether you should keep something in your garage. If it’s cheap to replace and your probability of needing it is low – but the cost of storing it is high, then it should go. It’s funny when I explain this simple thing to friends who have horded things in their garage to the point that they can’t park their cars in it, they feel empowered to become unencumbered by things that they felt like they couldn’t part with. All the needed was a basic structure.
So I’m not looking for a mathematically rigorous solution to precise evaluation, I’m trying to think of a three part framework that allows people to make intelligent decisions.
For instance, I was considering how many versions of the document exist in the ECM. The more versions there are the more likely that the information is valuable. I was also thinking that Word keeps track of total editing time. The more editing time the greater the probability that there’s something useful in there because the investment is greater. Obviously, these aren’t universal thoughts that would be great for a fully-fledged framework – but perhaps they can put some structure around the idea that the more effort put into the information artifact the more likely it is that you should keep it.
Does that provide a better sense for what I’m thinking – and where I’m hoping to go?
Rob
P.S. Patton said that “A good plan today is better than a perfect plan next week.” I’m trying to not let great be the enemy of good (or useful.) ------------------- Robert L. Bogue O: (317) 844-5310 M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog Are you burned out? https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out it.
From: sikmleaders@... <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:37 AM To: sikmleaders@... Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Identification of Potential Business Value
Hi Robert, You ask "How do you assess the potential business value of an information asset?" In return I ask "How does the business determine the potential value/utility?" What are key characteristics that the business utilizes to assess assets of importance, and to what level of importance? Your question can too easily become a theoretical one which will prompt theoretical answers. The most appropriate answer much be described in the context of the business, its issues, objectives and context.
Having said that, I know the inherent temptation to want to develop a framework that could be applied/adapted to various contexts and numerous frameworks have been developed over the years as Patrick has described. While these frameworks are relevant to our understanding as KM practitioners, they are seldom useful for businesses. They are, IMHO, a reference resource for us like arrows in our professional quiver. Which framework(s) are most relevant to this business' context? How should I adapt the framework to this business' context and specific needs as expressed in the contract/assignment?
There are many frameworks and models and they are all potentially useful, to us. The perfect framework is the one that we help the specific business develop to suit their own needs. Best Paul
|
|
|
|
Paul posted: "While these frameworks are relevant to our understanding as KM practitioners, they are seldom useful for businesses. They are, IMHO, a reference resource for us like arrows in our professional quiver. " This is spot on. Sometimes we in the Practitioner set get too enamored of our tools we forget who we are trying to help. Additionally, I found that the tools some times take time to build which lends a sense of "too slow to be relevant" air to our consulting. In a recent KM deployment to Afghanistan, I discovered that showing off the tools/frameworks provided less value than showing where improvement/value/management of change could occur. Later, when asked to "show my work" use of the framework tool helped provide additional context. BJP/JECC-KM @KMforDecision Adventures in Armed Epistemology
|
|
|
|
Frank Guerino
Hi Murray,
Understood. So, it appears that based on your definition that a Value Story is (paraphrasing) “an explanation of how a value or other number was achieved,” a Business Case would include multiple value stories that explain how each of its conclusions were made.
My Best,
-- Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
agreed Frank but I'm not really talking about a business case. There are many instances where you have to value something, for instance in doing a risk assessment assets are identified and valued, many times we use a value story or statement to briefly explain how we came up with the value of the asset. A full BC is not needed or wanted, especially when you have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of assets (I did an inventory in 1999 where I had 600,000 + devices). I use value stories embedded in analyses and other reports to explain how certain numbers are generated. Basically when I say a value story I'm referring to a short paragraph that explains how a value or other number was generated. I see a BC as something used at the project or program level to explain the reasoning and value for doing the project or program....murray jennex -----Original Message-----
From: Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders] To: SIKM Leaders Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2019 6:23 pm Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value
Hi Murray,
Something to consider as an extension to the concept of a “Story” is an actual “Business Case” with all its supporting details.
Companies like Amazon, Google, MS, and Apple all offer their employees the opportunity to pitch the value of their ideas/knowledge as fully developed business cases (BCs). Each BC must be extremely detailed and vetted. Users must understand competitive markets, cost of entry, Break Even Points, etc. And, if brought to a committee, the company acts as a Venture Capital company that (if the idea is approved) invests in the BC, providing not just funding but staff and access to resources that allows the owner of the BC to “run with it.”
In summary, employees are thought to think of a BC as a far more developed and detailed Story (based on an internal company template) that has been more thoroughly vetted for a higher probability of successful outcome.
My Best,
Frank -- Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so. So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there. I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on. From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization. The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values. No one story fits all. My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated.. I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context. So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific. If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex
-----Original Message-----
The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).
Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e..g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.
In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.
You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application..
Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered).
I hope that does not muddy the water over-much!
P
Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383
website: www.straitsknowledge.com weblog: www.greenchameleon.com twitter: @plambesg
Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
|
Murray Jennex
yes, a business case needs the numbers, the conditions under which it is operating and what it is proposing, and to make it readable and easily understood, several short value stories showing where and how the value comes.....murray -----Original Message----- From: Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders] To: SIKM Leaders Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2019 7:37 am Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value Hi Murray,
Understood. So, it appears that based on your definition that a Value Story is (paraphrasing) “an explanation of how a value or other number was achieved,” a Business Case would include multiple value stories that explain how each of its conclusions were made.
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: Friday, August 16, 2019 at 3:05 AM To: SIKM Leaders Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value agreed Frank but I'm not really talking about a business case. There are many instances where you have to value something, for instance in doing a risk assessment assets are identified and valued, many times we use a value story or statement to briefly explain how we came up with the value of the asset. A full BC is not needed or wanted, especially when you have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of assets (I did an inventory in 1999 where I had 600,000 + devices). I use value stories embedded in analyses and other reports to explain how certain numbers are generated. Basically when I say a value story I'm referring to a short paragraph that explains how a value or other number was generated. I see a BC as something used at the project or program level to explain the reasoning and value for doing the project or program....murray jennex
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders] To: SIKM Leaders <sikmleaders@...> Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2019 6:23 pm Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value Hi Murray,
Something to consider as an extension to the concept of a “Story” is an actual “Business Case” with all its supporting details.
Companies like Amazon, Google, MS, and Apple all offer their employees the opportunity to pitch the value of their ideas/knowledge as fully developed business cases (BCs). Each BC must be extremely detailed and vetted. Users must understand competitive markets, cost of entry, Break Even Points, etc. And, if brought to a committee, the company acts as a Venture Capital company that (if the idea is approved) invests in the BC, providing not just funding but staff and access to resources that allows the owner of the BC to “run with it.”
In summary, employees are thought to think of a BC as a far more developed and detailed Story (based on an internal company template) that has been more thoroughly vetted for a higher probability of successful outcome.
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: Thursday, August 15, 2019 at 12:51 AM To: SIKM Leaders Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so. So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there. I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on. From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization. The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values. No one story fits all. My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated.. I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context. So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific. If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe plambe@... [sikmleaders] To: sikmleaders Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 7:27 pm Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value Hi Robert The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).
Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e..g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.
In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.
You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application..
Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered).
I hope that does not muddy the water over-much!
P
Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383
Error! Filename not specified. website: www.straitsknowledge.com
weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
twitter: @plambesg
Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
|
Frank Guerino
Hi Murray,
That puts it in a very clear context.
Thanks. -- Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
yes, a business case needs the numbers, the conditions under which it is operating and what it is proposing, and to make it readable and easily understood, several short value stories showing where and how the value comes.....murray -----Original Message-----
From: Frank Guerino frank.guerino@... [sikmleaders] To: SIKM Leaders Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2019 7:37 am Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Identification of Potential Business Value
Hi Murray,
Understood. So, it appears that based on your definition that a Value Story is (paraphrasing) “an explanation of how a value or other number was achieved,” a Business Case would include multiple value stories that explain how each of its conclusions were made.
My Best,
-- Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders
agreed Frank but I'm not really talking about a business case. There are many instances where you have to value something, for instance in doing a risk assessment assets are identified and valued, many times we use a value story or statement to briefly explain how we came up with the value of the asset. A full BC is not needed or wanted, especially when you have thousands or even hundreds of thousands of assets (I did an inventory in 1999 where I had 600,000 + devices). I use value stories embedded in analyses and other reports to explain how certain numbers are generated. Basically when I say a value story I'm referring to a short paragraph that explains how a value or other number was generated. I see a BC as something used at the project or program level to explain the reasoning and value for doing the project or program....murray jennex -----Original Message-----
Hi Murray,
Something to consider as an extension to the concept of a “Story” is an actual “Business Case” with all its supporting details.
Companies like Amazon, Google, MS, and Apple all offer their employees the opportunity to pitch the value of their ideas/knowledge as fully developed business cases (BCs). Each BC must be extremely detailed and vetted. Users must understand competitive markets, cost of entry, Break Even Points, etc. And, if brought to a committee, the company acts as a Venture Capital company that (if the idea is approved) invests in the BC, providing not just funding but staff and access to resources that allows the owner of the BC to “run with it.”
In summary, employees are thought to think of a BC as a far more developed and detailed Story (based on an internal company template) that has been more thoroughly vetted for a higher probability of successful outcome.
My Best,
Frank -- Frank Guerino, Principal Managing Partner The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT) Guerino1_Skype (S)
From: SIKM Leaders on behalf of SIKM Leaders Reply-To: SIKM Leaders
Yes, valuing knowledge and KM is hard and there won't be a single formula to do so. So what I teach my students is to write a value story explaining the value you have determined and how you got there. I tell them they may be right, they may not be right, but no one will know until they try and by writing the value story they give everyone else a place to start and comment on. From this discussion we create a more refined value story and ultimately what the value is to our organization. The problem for why there is no universal value story is that all organizations are a little different with different values. No one story fits all. My own research has validated about 20 measures that show where value in KM/knowledge use are generated.. I don't expect organizations to use all of them but rather a relevant subset comprised of those measures that are relevant to their context. So, valuing is hard as it is organization specific. If you'd like a copy of my paper let me know and I'll send it to you.....murray jennex
-----Original Message-----
The peculiarity (and the problem) in valuing information and knowledge is its context dependency. The same asset can be incredibly valuable in some circumstances, and worthless in others, with only minor changes in the environment. Moreover, the same asset can be an enabler in some circumstances and a disabler in others (Dorothy Leonard).
Edith Penrose (Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1959) explored the challenge of valuing something with high but context dependent potentiality like capabilities and found herself at a loss for some kind of predictable formula. The Information Resource Management (IRM) movement in the 1970s tended to gravitate to the valuation of problems actually solved by information resources and systems - e.g. importance of decisions enabled (a loose equivalent of transacted value), while the core competencies movement (e..g. Gary Hamel and his KM followers) moved up the value stream by generalising to broad competences and looking at strategic goal alignment as a form of valuation. The intellectual capital movement aligned itself with the intangible asset accounting movement, and while it has a plurality of frameworks has failed, over 20+ years, (a) in getting a common model that can be widely adopted and (b) in explaining the transition between valuations high level strategic capabilities and how that value is constituted by its constituent granular information or knowledge assets.
In short, it’s a problem that has been beaten half to death, where the most useful and accepted work tends to be at high, strategic and aggregate levels, and the least convincing or useful work has been at the granular asset level. (One un-useful development of the IRM movement was to associate value with investment (cost) which led to the whole defensive "ROI of IM/KM movement" we still struggle with today) - completely ignoring the potentiality argument.
You mention the explicit/implicit conversion decision - one feature of that conversion is that in explicating implicit knowledge, you remove potentiality from it, you customise it towards specific applications. Max Boisot (Knowledge Assets) described the trade-off between the value of achieving scale and reach when you "explicitise" knowledge versus the loss of potentiality, adaptability and variety of application..
Now in terms of your specific question, whether or not to invest effort in converting something, I think the question should be less one of long term value/ potentiality, but more one of short term utility. Given our context now and the problems we have right now, how useful would it be to explicitise, versus the cost and foreseen volatility of this knowledge? This suggests being able to map the problem space, align with business needs and weigh up options and priorities. This is one of the things we do when we conduct knowledge audits. In that context, I guess the notion is closer to the IRM formula (value of problems solved). Except that I think “utility” is a better term to use than “value” (because “value” suggests the need/ability to put a number on something that can’t easily/accurately be numbered).
I hope that does not muddy the water over-much!
P
Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383
website: www.straitsknowledge.com weblog: www.greenchameleon.com twitter: @plambesg
Knowledge mapping made easy: www.aithinsoftware.com
|
|
|
eciate if can share me the paper. Tks. IEO. Sandra Maria Lopez Muriel. PhD telecomunicaciones Conscious Business Coach Consultora Gestión del conocimiento y soluciones en Sharepoint Docente investigador Gestión del conocimiento
El contenido de este mensaje puede ser información privilegiada y confidencial. Si usted no es el destinatario real del mismo, por favor informe de ello a quien lo envía y destrúyalo en forma inmediata.”
El jue., 15 ago. 2019 a las 0:08, Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders] (<sikmleaders@...>) escribió:
|
|
|
|
tman9999@...
“My kingdom for a nail....”
Yes, context is everything when it comes to valuing knowledge assets and artifacts. Back in the early JIT days (Just In Time) a common shorthand for one its core concepts was “I want what I want when I want it.” KM thought-leader Larry Prusak quoted a modified version of this: “I know what I know when I know it.” Both are relevant here. A knowledge worker may not even be aware of the value of a given artifact even when they are in the midst of doing something that ultimately requires or would benefit them in completing it. Only upon hitting the sticking point does the worker recognize the gap between the requirements of the task and their ability to execute it. “I want what I want when I want it.” This points to an easy way of inventorying artifacts: figure out a way to map them to specific processes or tasks and activities within existing processes. Example: Electrical utility workers are trained in the classroom and then in the field via a union guild model. Due to the evolution of electrical network equipment that naturally occurs over decades, it is impossible to train for a given procedure on every variation of the equipment that that procedure could be performed on. So the classroom training on changing an overload fuse on a 600KVA panel focuses on the current version of those panels. But in the field a worker may come across a decades old panel that appears roughly the same as the one they saw in the classroom, except for the fact that following the sequence of steps for working on a new panel will result in a catastrophic failure if that sequence is applied when working on an old panel. One possible solution: your idea of smartphone video comes into play here. Simply have an experienced worker video the correct procedure and upload it to a repository that houses a collection of said field videos. Of course this leads to two important challenges: 1. How to tag these mini-tutorials so they are easily surfaced when searched for (I want what I want when I want it). 2. How to alert the worker that a) a procedure modification is needed here; and b) there is an artifact available to help them. I used the example of the electric utility field workers because about 12 years ago I was on a ride-along with one of them and witnessed this scenario first-hand. Fortunately the field worker I was with was a veteran lineman who knew all about the need for a different procedure on the old panel. As I watched over his shoulder while he was working on it he explained to me how it required a different set of steps and what would happen if someone tried to complete the task using the “normal” approach (it involved a big “boom”). Even thought smartphones were still just emerging, the notion of videoing the procedure for this odd-ball panel seemed like a no-brainer - if we could come up with solutions to the above two questions. Based on the above story, I hope it gives you some ideas about how you might approach your challenge. Start by cherry-picking the easy-to-value artifacts and developing a way to address the above two questions as related to known, existing processes. Your challenge is to come up with a way of putting knowledge assets and artifacts “in the way of” the knowledge worker who is executing against a given known workflow or process. Solve this and you’ll be well on your way toward gaining insight and understanding as to the value of a given artifact or asset, as well as laying down the infrastructure that will be usable for artifacts that may not be so easily mapped to a given process or task. |
|
|
|
Douglas Weidner
tman, What you have described is essentially something I designed for the US DoD in 1994. It was to house their Business Process Re-engineering methodology, which a team of us BPR consultants had documented. The question was how to publish it for wide distribution. In 1994, a hard copy manual would have been the traditional solution. But, to save trees and many other reasons such as frequent updates, and to start leveraging DoDs IT network, I suggested an approach we ultimately called a Knowledge Base. It was housed in a KBase Tool (Microsoft Access and Visual Basic 3.0 for those who know such s/ware). In those days, a KBase was definitely not a repository. A methodology is analogous to a process, typically with a work breakdown structure (WBS). Each WBS activity had a description and any number of attached (associated) objects. These three components are essential and remain the main ingredients of today's granular, process-oriented KBases. In 1995, DoD funded the development of a KM methodology, which was housed on the same tool (VB 5.0 by then). That early KM Methodology was the core for the eventual KM Institute's KM Methodology. As a KM Consultant, I later recommended the KBase use to the UN. But I recommended integration of CoPs, for which I coined an expression "Connect & Collect", where 'Collect' referenced the KBase content and 'Connect' referenced the CoP when the KBase content was inadequate or some K nugget (object) needed clarification. The above history and the evolution of KBases is described more fully in a chapter in the book, Knowledge Management Matters - Words of Wisdom from Leading Practitioners, 2018 Where is KM going? One Long-Term Knowledge
Manager’s Perspectives on KM’s Roots by Chronological Stages If anyone would like a copy of my chapter, just ping me at: douglas.weidner@...
|
|
|
|
jstemke@...
Hi Robert, Tom Short’s suggestion to capture context by linking knowledge artifacts to specific processes or tasks and features within existing processes is relevant and realistic. For Chevron, this turned out to be with a Q&A process. A typical example was our refinery KM site. After a large merger, we needed to connect over 2000 refinery engineers and operators to our best practices to ensure high quality global operations. The best practice library was very comprehensive, but difficult for the new engineers to navigate due to their different backgrounds. We designed a Q&A tool using refinery process and equipment terms (the metadata) which were familiar to all the new engineers. One of the pre-launch steps asked each engineer to complete a profile by selecting items from the two lists that they knew something about. If time was of the essence, the engineer facing a problem could find someone to call for quick help. When an engineer ran into a plant problem, he or she just posted a question and selected relevant metadata. Emails were sent to engineers whose profile had matching metadata. Often the engineer received multiple suggestions in a few days. We asked the engineer to “close the loop” by documenting the actual solution and estimating the value to their refinery in terms of cost and/or time savings. We documented an average of $10-20 million/year in business value savings. The new knowledge, which included the problem, relevant metadata, suggested solutions and the actual solution employed was easily and quickly tagged and available for future problems. Even answers that didn’t fit the original problem could easily apply to another problem in the future. Thus, you may not want to discard it. Most of today’s KM technology tools don’t offer this capability. We did this with Lotus Notes back in the day. Fortunately, I have discovered that it is possible to build the same capabilities in SharePoint. --Jeff |
|
|