I've just arrived at Warwick Business School for the KIN Autumn Workshop 2009 - in plenty of time to get on the free wireless and have a coffee too, most unusual for me!
I'm going to try and semi-live blog to record my thoughts - obviously as KIN is a membership organisation I'll be self-censoring for any material that seems sensitive, but will try and capture insights and general opinions.
There's a good programme for the next couple of days so should be interesting - starting off with a session this morning on "Communities of Practice: A social discipline of learning", with Etienne Wenger - looking forward to it!
Admin note - I'm using "KIN_Autumn_2009" to tag all relevant posts here, and have created the Twitter hashtag #KINWorkshop for live tweeting during the event. Do get involved...
[EDIT] Over a month later now, and as you can probably tell my live blogging idea didn't really work! In the spirit of KM I'm going to write a post soon talking about why this was, and whether it's a problem. Stay tuned...
Showing posts with label KM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label KM. Show all posts
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
The much reported death of KM - my take...
Last week I attended David Gurteen's "Effective Knowledge Worker" workshop - a valuable and very thought provoking day! One point that came up in discussion was the "Is KM dead?" debate that seems to have been rattling around in the KM community and online for a while now. As usual never knowing when to leave alone, I thought I'd add my tuppence...
Much of this appears to have kicked off following an interview with Dave Snowden and Larry Prusak last year. Luis Suarez's post here has an excellent round-up of links and further discussion. I'm not going to attempt a comprehensive point-by-point argument here, but rather put forward some of my thoughts, particularly based on my own experience.
My first response to "KM is dead!" was to ask - "What do you mean by KM?" and indeed, this does seem to be the key to the debate. In general, those saying "Yes, KM is dead!" aren't doing KM any more, oh no. They're doing Social Media, or Knowledge Sharing, or something equally flavour-of-the-month - yay!
The other side - "No, KM's still alive" - tend to still call what they do Knowledge Management, like myself. It can't be dead, because then we'd be out of a job. Maybe your idea of KM is dead - not mine. Nuh-uh. Vive le KM!
What I'm getting at is that at some level this is all a squabble about terminology. Call it what you will, but we're all working towards the same end - improving the ability of people to be more productive, perform to a higher standard and make better decisions. We believe we can best do this through making changes in the way people develop and use knowledge.
An aside - I should make clear that this is about driving improved business results - we're not doing this to make people happier. Sometimes KM - and recently, social media - people seem to miss this point and assume empowering people, having open conversations etc. should be goals in themselves. Not so - they should all be in pursuit of higher performance. Blimey, I sound like Alan Sugar! However... it's no coincidence that happy, empowered people & high performing businesses go hand-in-glove. Aren't we lucky to be living in a day & age where we get a chance to have fun at work and be high-powered and successful? That's the idea, anyway...
Anyway - back to my main point. Whatever we're doing in this space, it is all about changing the ways people develop & use their knowledge. Is that knowledge tacit or explicit? Can it be held in a document? Can knowledge exist at all outside of people's heads? KM experts would happily argue all of these points - hence I propose we ignore them. Does it really matter? Some people love taxonomies and file systems, others won't touch anything formally managed and controlled, preferring instead informal networks and conversations. News! Both of these are KM, and in my opinion anyone claiming to be a Knowledge Manager should acknowledge this.
This is a key point in making useful progress from this discussion - people are messy and inconsistent, and any effective approach to improving knowledge work has to recognise this. IT and IM types can find this a horrific concept - people left to their own devices will inevitably produce a mess of stuff. But people are also pretty good at resolving ambiguity and sorting the useful from the dross - if they're empowered to do so.
The flip side of this, is that some situations, problems and types of people are best dealt with through formal processes, structures and management. Yes, all you social media, Web 2.0 hipsters - some people do actually like doing things in a structured, routine manner! Crazy, I know. Not my cup of tea, but as KM experts we need an approach that embraces all the many ways of doing things, rather than imposing any one solution.
So - what I guess I'm trying to say is that KM is not a consultancy methodology, or a programming language, or a scientific theory. I don't believe it can "die", or be discredited, or debunked. No - KM is simply an approach which recognises the importance of both individuals and knowledge, and develops a wide, varied and above all pragmatic set of practices that help improve knowledge working effectiveness.
I realise I've just fallen into my own trap and developed yet another definition of KM. Not what I set out to do, but never mind - I will plough on regardless.
Going off on a slightly different tack now - I will wrap up this post soon, I promise - I'd like to address another angle of the "KM is dead" argument - the impact of past failures. It seems to be suggested that as KM has "failed" in the past, it is tainted beyond recognition. Well, for a start I don't believe it has failed - KM has delivered notable successes. More importantly, if we value knowledge - and we do - then how can we fail to manage it?
I think it's relevant to compare to other management practices here. Risk Management. Safety Management. Financial Management. All of these have a range of tools & techniques. All have had spectacular failures. (Hello, credit crunch!) But nobody argues with their basic principles - I will minimise my risks, I will increase safety, I will run my business on a sound financial basis. Why not also - I will maximise value and performance through management of knowledge?
So I believe it's incumbent on us as KM experts to embrace past failures, learn from them and promote Knowledge Management as a holistic, pragmatic way of increasing performance. If the most effective way to do this in your organisation is through managing documents and file structures, great. If it's by setting up knowledge plans, communities of practice and so on - again, great. You may drive huge improvements by effecting cultural change, implementing social tools and empowering your people - excellent! But whatever you do, focus on the individuals, the knowledge, and how your actions help to improve their way of working. That is what KM is all about.
Much of this appears to have kicked off following an interview with Dave Snowden and Larry Prusak last year. Luis Suarez's post here has an excellent round-up of links and further discussion. I'm not going to attempt a comprehensive point-by-point argument here, but rather put forward some of my thoughts, particularly based on my own experience.
My first response to "KM is dead!" was to ask - "What do you mean by KM?" and indeed, this does seem to be the key to the debate. In general, those saying "Yes, KM is dead!" aren't doing KM any more, oh no. They're doing Social Media, or Knowledge Sharing, or something equally flavour-of-the-month - yay!
The other side - "No, KM's still alive" - tend to still call what they do Knowledge Management, like myself. It can't be dead, because then we'd be out of a job. Maybe your idea of KM is dead - not mine. Nuh-uh. Vive le KM!
What I'm getting at is that at some level this is all a squabble about terminology. Call it what you will, but we're all working towards the same end - improving the ability of people to be more productive, perform to a higher standard and make better decisions. We believe we can best do this through making changes in the way people develop and use knowledge.
An aside - I should make clear that this is about driving improved business results - we're not doing this to make people happier. Sometimes KM - and recently, social media - people seem to miss this point and assume empowering people, having open conversations etc. should be goals in themselves. Not so - they should all be in pursuit of higher performance. Blimey, I sound like Alan Sugar! However... it's no coincidence that happy, empowered people & high performing businesses go hand-in-glove. Aren't we lucky to be living in a day & age where we get a chance to have fun at work and be high-powered and successful? That's the idea, anyway...
Anyway - back to my main point. Whatever we're doing in this space, it is all about changing the ways people develop & use their knowledge. Is that knowledge tacit or explicit? Can it be held in a document? Can knowledge exist at all outside of people's heads? KM experts would happily argue all of these points - hence I propose we ignore them. Does it really matter? Some people love taxonomies and file systems, others won't touch anything formally managed and controlled, preferring instead informal networks and conversations. News! Both of these are KM, and in my opinion anyone claiming to be a Knowledge Manager should acknowledge this.
This is a key point in making useful progress from this discussion - people are messy and inconsistent, and any effective approach to improving knowledge work has to recognise this. IT and IM types can find this a horrific concept - people left to their own devices will inevitably produce a mess of stuff. But people are also pretty good at resolving ambiguity and sorting the useful from the dross - if they're empowered to do so.
The flip side of this, is that some situations, problems and types of people are best dealt with through formal processes, structures and management. Yes, all you social media, Web 2.0 hipsters - some people do actually like doing things in a structured, routine manner! Crazy, I know. Not my cup of tea, but as KM experts we need an approach that embraces all the many ways of doing things, rather than imposing any one solution.
So - what I guess I'm trying to say is that KM is not a consultancy methodology, or a programming language, or a scientific theory. I don't believe it can "die", or be discredited, or debunked. No - KM is simply an approach which recognises the importance of both individuals and knowledge, and develops a wide, varied and above all pragmatic set of practices that help improve knowledge working effectiveness.
I realise I've just fallen into my own trap and developed yet another definition of KM. Not what I set out to do, but never mind - I will plough on regardless.
Going off on a slightly different tack now - I will wrap up this post soon, I promise - I'd like to address another angle of the "KM is dead" argument - the impact of past failures. It seems to be suggested that as KM has "failed" in the past, it is tainted beyond recognition. Well, for a start I don't believe it has failed - KM has delivered notable successes. More importantly, if we value knowledge - and we do - then how can we fail to manage it?
I think it's relevant to compare to other management practices here. Risk Management. Safety Management. Financial Management. All of these have a range of tools & techniques. All have had spectacular failures. (Hello, credit crunch!) But nobody argues with their basic principles - I will minimise my risks, I will increase safety, I will run my business on a sound financial basis. Why not also - I will maximise value and performance through management of knowledge?
So I believe it's incumbent on us as KM experts to embrace past failures, learn from them and promote Knowledge Management as a holistic, pragmatic way of increasing performance. If the most effective way to do this in your organisation is through managing documents and file structures, great. If it's by setting up knowledge plans, communities of practice and so on - again, great. You may drive huge improvements by effecting cultural change, implementing social tools and empowering your people - excellent! But whatever you do, focus on the individuals, the knowledge, and how your actions help to improve their way of working. That is what KM is all about.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Stories
Came across a good piece about the power of stories on Seth Godin's blog here and was very struck by the mention of people relating to stories more than features.
I think this is a vital thing to understand when dealing with people in any business where you can't supply everything they wish for. It's easy to dismiss people who say they want something to work "just like Google" or who complain that their laptop isn't as sleek & stylish as a MacBook. To a certain extent this is justified - as a business, we certainly can't afford to kit people out with the latest cutting edge gear every 6 months!
However, we should recognise that when people talk this way, they aren't necessarily talking about the functionality or features of the technology. They're talking about their own stories for how it makes them feel. For example, Google search isn't infallible - but they've done an incredible job of framing their offerings around you, the user.
If we want people to buy into what we can do for them - and I feel this applies to both KM and internal IT - then we need to understand how these sorts of stories work. We can't compete with Google or Apple in marketing terms. But there's no reason why we can't understand our users and develop stories around them that make a powerful case for what we offer.
NB: This is an edited version of a post to a corporate internal blog.
NB: This is an edited version of a post to a corporate internal blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
