Date
1 - 9 of 9
Artillery repair on the Ukrainian battlefield: KM? #discussion-starter
|
Or just expedient use of available technology under duress? Was just reading this article about Ukrainian field artillery crews using their personal cell phones to make calls and exchange texts from the battlefield with US Army personnel to get help repairing US-provided Howitzer field artillery pieces. There was a time when companies paid KM consultants to help them identify opportunities for such interventions and put in place the processes needed to do it. We used to use BP (British Petroleum) as an example of how real-time virtual expertise could be brought to bear on a problem to good effect out on the drilling rigs in the North Sea. I'm guessing that in the Ukrainian battlefield example, no one was calling this knowledge management; and I wouldn't be surprised if the "process" for it evolved in near realtime as artillery crews at the front called out for help any way they could think of. Which makes me wonder how much of what we do in the name of KM is trying to force something that isn't quite ready yet, versus observing what's already taking place in a limited way and nudging it and promoting it to help it spread more quickly. Questions
-- -Tom -- Tom Short Consulting All of my previous SIKM Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
Murray Jennex
Tom, I'll answer the second question, yes, it is km even if km personnel are not involved. my phd dissertation was focused on how nuclear personnel developed their own km without km people, just like the Ukrainians. As an ex navy officer, necessity is the mother of invention and in battle you don't wait for the rear echelon people to step up, you'll die waiting! if you remember the old movie heartbreak ridge it uses another real life example of front line personnel using cell phones to solve an immediate problem of getting air support by calling their home base. Since we are talking of sending tanks to Ukraine we can bet that this will continue. Now the surprise truth is that the military does set this up as KM, its called CoPs, communities of practice and the military makes sure you know who to call. In the early 2000s the air force had over 1200 CoPs focused on maintenance. Back in 97 I stated that KM happens, people will find a way to share knowledge even if we don't provide the systems to do it! of course I got a lot of pushback on KM happens, sounded too much like ### happens....murray jennex -----Original Message-----
From: Tom Short <tshortconsulting@...> To: main@SIKM.groups.io Sent: Sun, Jan 29, 2023 2:00 pm Subject: [SIKM] Artillery repair on the Ukrainian battlefield: KM? Or just expedient use of available technology under duress?
Was just reading this article about Ukrainian field artillery crews using their personal cell phones to make calls and exchange texts from the battlefield with US Army personnel to get help repairing US-provided Howitzer field artillery pieces.
There was a time when companies paid KM consultants to help them identify opportunities for such interventions and put in place the processes needed to do it. We used to use BP (British Petroleum) as an example of how real-time virtual expertise could be brought to bear on a problem to good effect out on the drilling rigs in the North Sea.
I'm guessing that in the Ukrainian battlefield example, no one was calling this knowledge management; and I wouldn't be surprised if the "process" for it evolved in near realtime as artillery crews at the front called out for help any way they could think of.
Which makes me wonder how much of what we do in the name of KM is trying to force something that isn't quite ready yet, versus observing what's already taking place in a limited way and nudging it and promoting it to help it spread more quickly.
Questions
-- -Tom -- Tom Short Consulting
TSC +1 415 300 7457 All of my previous SIKM Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Finch
I find Tom's second question - "Is it still KM if workers are exhibiting KM-like behavior that evolved organically out of necessity?" - the most fascinating.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Murray's response sounds right - knowledge gets managed
one way or another in a given context, with varying degrees of effectiveness, even if formal systems and procedures aren't in place. But questions then arise about authority, standards, reproducibility
of procedures, etc...
It makes me think of informal communities generating their own folksonomies and, in turn, the information scholar Ludi Price's work on the ways that fans
of pop culture manage information about the shows, movies, music, etc that they are passionate about. She finds that, especially in the digital age, there is significant potential for information professionals to learn from this informal and amateur information
work.
Interview with Dr. Price here in
Information Professional - https://booksadventures.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/scripturient-infopro-jan-feb-2021.pdf -
based on this Soundcloud interview. More at Ludi
Price's Google Scholar page.
Best wishes to all for the new week,
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lambe
Thanks Tom for the interesting questions and responses from Murray and Matt.
I’m not sure I’d use the word drive - technology/tools can certainly shape KM behaviours in very strong and specific ways, because of the affordances they provide. Humans are very good at improvising using the tools to hand, but those tools themselves shape the improvisation. Dave Snowden uses the term exaptation (taken from evolutionary biology) to refer to adaptive behaviours that are shaped by features of the environment that are available (correct me if I’m wrong, Dave).
Matt referred to ad hoc improvisations made as needs arise, and then more structured management approaches that kick in when you see repeatable needs and improvable/ reusable practices. For example, use of cell phones in a military context does now need structural and managerial support - several lethal artillery strikes on Russian forces were linked to the monitoring of public cellphone networks, which helped Ukrainian forces identify concentrations of Russian troops. Cellphone use can backfire (literally) if you don’t put some structure and boundaries and security around it. The Ukrainians have been using Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite system which is essentially closed to Russian monitoring. So it’s not as ad hoc as it might look on the surface, there are some deliberate managerial actions and directions that support that level of flexibility and effectiveness. For those familiar with the Cynefin framework, I find that the distinctions between the complex domain, complicated domain and managed domains useful as a lens for thinking about KM approaches relevant to each domain. The complex domain is difficult to read and fast-moving (organic). It is the domain of improvisation, wide networks and sharing, and rapid cycle learning. The complicated domain is where you engage relatively structured domains of expertise and analytical tools. As learning from the complex domain aggregates and gets built out, what was a complex challenge becomes a complicated (expertise-accessible) challenge. The managed domain is where repeatable, frequent/ important, and well understood needs and practices get structured into rules and standards and procedures, and more structured (less organic) knowledge bases. A good KM ecosystem usually needs all three types of KM. I find the challenge is that people who “get” the complex domain don’t really have tolerance for the managed domain, and vice versa, so a key challenge is interpreting what’s learned in the complex domain, and translating effectively the bits that can be standardised into behavioural changes and new structured knowledge resources. P
Patrick Lambe
Partner Straits Knowledge phone: +65 98528511 web: www.straitsknowledge.com resources: www.greenchameleon.com knowledge mapping: www.aithinsoftware.com 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Snowden
This raised a lot of issues - including the danger of using private devises which can make you a target if the enemy are monitoring. My own view on this is that you create objects and define interactions then let applications emerge. KM people keep designing systems based on how they think things should happen rather than creating capability from which that can evolve. I write some of this up recently https://thecynefin.co/narrative-enhanced-practice-2-of-2/
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Britz
Dave, you make a REALLY solid point. "KM people keep designing systems based on how they think things should happen rather than creating capability from which that can evolve.". It's certainly not isolated to KM people. It stems from the need to control and of course measurement systems that organizations impose on individuals. Our full potential can never be realized when constrained by unquestioned and limited expectations of role and responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave wrote:
Exactly this. Or as we used to say back in my IBM days, design the river banks and let the river flow; don't try to control the flow of the river. Another way to think about it is, if you have to "sell" people on adopting your new way, maybe you need to rethink your new way and make it more consistent with what people are already doing or are otherwise predisposed to do.
Tom Short Consulting All of my previous SIKM Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis Thomas
Mark Britz,
I have always appreciated your candor and willingness to explore outside-the-box ideas so decided to respond to your post, so would like to address the KM / L&D discussion. According to a 2022 APQC survey, 87% of the respondents want technologies that can capture and display end-to-end business processes. Why? Because ERP systems have those processes and their complex of dependent, contingent, and causal relationships buried in black box systems which cannot be viewed by end users - the very KNOWLEDGE that employees, partners, suppliers, and customers need to do their jobs. It is the practical, real-world, rubber meets the road policies, procedures, tasks, and processes that enable organizations to run. End-to-end business processes embody the terms, concepts, values and n-dimensional cognitive intelligence of organizations. When users can see the terms, concepts, values and the intelligence inherent within process relationships, they automatically gain insight into not only the process itself, but into the systems those processes as are a part. Along this line, users also learn critical thinking and problem solving skills while applying those processes during work, in real-time. From my experience, the L&D community considers systems thinking as curriculum. Systems represent a series of courses. Most in the L&D community, from my perspective, think of technology as authorizing tools. Especially those tools that support creative expression. Yes, there are hundreds of LMS systems on the market, but most of these a data-driven and incapable of modeling complex business process models that can be used as both training and operational knowledge platforms. New, emergent, end-to-end business process displays offer a direct training experience. They provide a cross-departmental, cross-functional educational experiences. Learning can be directed, but these processes also provide a powerful self-paced learning experience because they entice curious minds that want to know how the puzzle fits together. These models enable exploration and discovery. I know that many on this forum do not believe in self-paced learning, but really, most all learning is self-paced. Let’s stop stop selling humanity short. Dennis L Thomas
(810) 662-5199
dlthomas@...
IQStrategix.com
Leveraging Organizational Knowledge
 On Jan 30, 2023, 9:49 AM -0500, Mark Britz <mwbritz@...>, wrote: Dave, you make a REALLY solid point. "KM people keep designing systems based on how they think things should happen rather than creating capability from which that can evolve.". It's certainly not isolated to KM people. It stems from the need to control and of course measurement systems that organizations impose on individuals. Our full potential can never be realized when constrained by unquestioned and limited expectations of role and responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
@Dennis - what L&D/KM discussion are you referring to? I didn't see anything in Mark's post on this thread mentioning L&D. Confused.
-- -Tom -- Tom Short Consulting All of my previous SIKM Posts |
|
|
|
