<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bringing Knowledge, Relationships, and Experts Together in the Enterprise</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/</link>
	<description>A blog about Knowledge Management, Communities, Collaboration, Learning, Social Computing and Work/Life Balance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:36:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Library clips :: Library 2.0 reference :: November :: 2006</title>
		<link>http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/comment-page-1/#comment-38433</link>
		<dc:creator>Library clips :: Library 2.0 reference :: November :: 2006</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:32:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/#comment-38433</guid>
		<description>[...] Sure, the fundamental part is a repository for reference experiences&#8230;but what about just general information sharing. Like Luis Suarez mentions in respect to expert locators, if we have a knowledge sharing culture, we are bound to know who the experts are because we read their stuff, or our colleague reads their stuff, or we could search or browse by tag in the web 2.0 base and find who is responsible for the relevant content you find. That is, sometimes we may not need to refer to the locator system as we already are aware of certain experts because of the open social information sharing system. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Sure, the fundamental part is a repository for reference experiences&#8230;but what about just general information sharing. Like Luis Suarez mentions in respect to expert locators, if we have a knowledge sharing culture, we are bound to know who the experts are because we read their stuff, or our colleague reads their stuff, or we could search or browse by tag in the web 2.0 base and find who is responsible for the relevant content you find. That is, sometimes we may not need to refer to the locator system as we already are aware of certain experts because of the open social information sharing system. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Library clips :: The different ways of finding experts :: July :: 2006</title>
		<link>http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/comment-page-1/#comment-9124</link>
		<dc:creator>Library clips :: The different ways of finding experts :: July :: 2006</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:56:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/#comment-9124</guid>
		<description>[...] Firstly the more social an enterprise is the more we know who the experts are&#8230;like any type of socialising, the more you share and network the more you know about people. If km 2.0 tools are the norm staff will be sharing the type of information not normally teased out. This will become part of our daily information just like reading the newspaper or company daily news, but now we will absorb daily news generated by all staff members (read internal blogs, social bookmarks, wiki&#8217;s&#8230;all bottom-up tools)&#8230;so besides knowing about the external world, or enterprise news according to managers, we will share and read internal news according to staff. How would you ever know there is a staff member in your &#8220;India&#8221; office who is a champion in wikis&#8230;unless that person had an enterprise soapbox (eg. blog, social bookmarks) we may never know. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Firstly the more social an enterprise is the more we know who the experts are&#8230;like any type of socialising, the more you share and network the more you know about people. If km 2.0 tools are the norm staff will be sharing the type of information not normally teased out. This will become part of our daily information just like reading the newspaper or company daily news, but now we will absorb daily news generated by all staff members (read internal blogs, social bookmarks, wiki&#8217;s&#8230;all bottom-up tools)&#8230;so besides knowing about the external world, or enterprise news according to managers, we will share and read internal news according to staff. How would you ever know there is a staff member in your &#8220;India&#8221; office who is a champion in wikis&#8230;unless that person had an enterprise soapbox (eg. blog, social bookmarks) we may never know. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cogenz: Social bookmarking in the enterprise</title>
		<link>http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/comment-page-1/#comment-8209</link>
		<dc:creator>Cogenz: Social bookmarking in the enterprise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:54:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/#comment-8209</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Expertise Management using Cogenz...&lt;/strong&gt;

One of the major benefits that comes from using an enterprise bookmarking tool like Cogenz (as opposed to just using a publicly-available social bookmarking tool) is the ability to locate expertise within your organisation.
In large organisations in pa...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Expertise Management using Cogenz&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>One of the major benefits that comes from using an enterprise bookmarking tool like Cogenz (as opposed to just using a publicly-available social bookmarking tool) is the ability to locate expertise within your organisation.<br />
In large organisations in pa&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis Suarez</title>
		<link>http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/comment-page-1/#comment-6130</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis Suarez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/#comment-6130</guid>
		<description>Thanks a lot, Dennis, for the feedback comments. Great input !

RE: Knowledge Workers, I am not sure we are using the same definition of that term. I have actually always used it based on the traditional concept that has been made available as well over at &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_worker&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;. A knowledge worker to me is everyone who has got a need to process and deal with knowledge, regardless of the area they may well be. So that basically means that everyone who accumulates and works with knowledge is for me a knowledge worker. And their position does not really matter. That is why even experts, perhaps even more so, would be considered knowledge workers to me, too. I don&#039;t think I would ever feel comfortable restricting the knowledge worker role to only those who are doing some work related to KM areas. That is, indeed, far too restricting.

RE: Where to start,

&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;I would start by identifying the company’s business strategy and how it supports this business strategy via key functions and activities. It is expertise about these key functions and activities that needs to be identified and managed.&quot;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Yes, certainly that is a good point but let&#039;s discuss this further. At the point in time where we are now wouldn&#039;t you think that by now most of the businesses out there would have their own strategies already piled up and ready to go? I mean, unless it is a newly formed company I can imagine that they would have their own strategy in place already and if they do not I bet they would be in big trouble. So I think that we could just let go by that part and focus on the expertise and about those key functions and activities. And this is the case where a &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;SNA&lt;/a&gt; would be a good start because with it you would be able to identify where those experts are in the organisation and how things happen around them. So you would be able to find out what key functions they are executing, what activities they are involved with, what types of connections they have in place not only amongst themselves but also with other coworkers, etc. etc. Have a look at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Wikipedia entry on SNA&lt;/a&gt; for a more detailed description.

&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Social relationships and patterns of communications and influence will come into play later on as initial baseline experts identify additional expert through a nomination and ranking process.&quot;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Indeed, you are absolutely right on this, but again, if it is not for a newly formed business I would have serious doubts from whatever other business who would have to go through those steps at this point in time. That means that rather they are in trouble or that they are going through some major reorg. I think that pretty much every single company by now has got that strategy put in place and functioning quite happily. However, some of them may be lacking the second part: the study of those social relationships and patterns of communications to help enhance the way people share knowledge and collaborate with one another. What do you think ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks a lot, Dennis, for the feedback comments. Great input !</p>
<p>RE: Knowledge Workers, I am not sure we are using the same definition of that term. I have actually always used it based on the traditional concept that has been made available as well over at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_worker" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>. A knowledge worker to me is everyone who has got a need to process and deal with knowledge, regardless of the area they may well be. So that basically means that everyone who accumulates and works with knowledge is for me a knowledge worker. And their position does not really matter. That is why even experts, perhaps even more so, would be considered knowledge workers to me, too. I don&#8217;t think I would ever feel comfortable restricting the knowledge worker role to only those who are doing some work related to KM areas. That is, indeed, far too restricting.</p>
<p>RE: Where to start,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;I would start by identifying the company’s business strategy and how it supports this business strategy via key functions and activities. It is expertise about these key functions and activities that needs to be identified and managed.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, certainly that is a good point but let&#8217;s discuss this further. At the point in time where we are now wouldn&#8217;t you think that by now most of the businesses out there would have their own strategies already piled up and ready to go? I mean, unless it is a newly formed company I can imagine that they would have their own strategy in place already and if they do not I bet they would be in big trouble. So I think that we could just let go by that part and focus on the expertise and about those key functions and activities. And this is the case where a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis" rel="nofollow">SNA</a> would be a good start because with it you would be able to identify where those experts are in the organisation and how things happen around them. So you would be able to find out what key functions they are executing, what activities they are involved with, what types of connections they have in place not only amongst themselves but also with other coworkers, etc. etc. Have a look at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia entry on SNA</a> for a more detailed description.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Social relationships and patterns of communications and influence will come into play later on as initial baseline experts identify additional expert through a nomination and ranking process.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p>Indeed, you are absolutely right on this, but again, if it is not for a newly formed business I would have serious doubts from whatever other business who would have to go through those steps at this point in time. That means that rather they are in trouble or that they are going through some major reorg. I think that pretty much every single company by now has got that strategy put in place and functioning quite happily. However, some of them may be lacking the second part: the study of those social relationships and patterns of communications to help enhance the way people share knowledge and collaborate with one another. What do you think ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dennis D. McDonald</title>
		<link>http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/comment-page-1/#comment-6110</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennis D. McDonald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:05:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elsua.net/2006/06/15/bringing-knowledge-relationships-and-experts-together-in-the-enterprise/#comment-6110</guid>
		<description>Luis, I want to comment about two specific topics.

The first concerns the focus on knowledge workers.

The second concerns the question of where to start.

KNOWLEDGE WORKERS

I don&#039;t agree that in the development of a system to make it easier to locate and contact experts within an organization that the focus should be primarily on &quot;knowledge workers.&quot; Whatever the employee&#039;s role, sooner or late a problem will arise that could be solved with the aid of an expert. This is going to happen whether the employee is a senior white collar manager, a shop floor shift supervisor, a service truck dispatcher, a lab assistant, or a call center rep.  Nor is it safe to assume that the expert will be what we would consider to be a &quot;knowledge worker.&quot; (Given the pervasive nature of computer and information technology in all aspects of modern life, I am of the opinion that the term &quot;knowledge worker&quot; has a distinct &quot;20th century&quot; ring to it.

WHERE TO START

You suggest that one possible place to start will be a &quot;social network analysis.&quot; While I must plead ignorance of the term and what it represents, I&#039;m not sure I agree that that is a good place to start. I would start by idenfying the company&#039;s business strategy and how it supports this business strategy via key functions and activities. It is expertise about these key functions and activities that needs to be identified and managed. 

I&#039;m not saying that social relationships are unimportant. I&#039;m just saying that an initial effort must be made to define as a baseline both a high level map of the knowledge needed to run the company -- tied to the work that must be done to run the company -- followed by a first cut at the identification of key experts in each of these knowledge areas. 

Social relationships and patterns of communications and influence will come into play later on as initial baseline experts identify additional expert through a nomination and ranking process.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Luis, I want to comment about two specific topics.</p>
<p>The first concerns the focus on knowledge workers.</p>
<p>The second concerns the question of where to start.</p>
<p>KNOWLEDGE WORKERS</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t agree that in the development of a system to make it easier to locate and contact experts within an organization that the focus should be primarily on &#8220;knowledge workers.&#8221; Whatever the employee&#8217;s role, sooner or late a problem will arise that could be solved with the aid of an expert. This is going to happen whether the employee is a senior white collar manager, a shop floor shift supervisor, a service truck dispatcher, a lab assistant, or a call center rep.  Nor is it safe to assume that the expert will be what we would consider to be a &#8220;knowledge worker.&#8221; (Given the pervasive nature of computer and information technology in all aspects of modern life, I am of the opinion that the term &#8220;knowledge worker&#8221; has a distinct &#8220;20th century&#8221; ring to it.</p>
<p>WHERE TO START</p>
<p>You suggest that one possible place to start will be a &#8220;social network analysis.&#8221; While I must plead ignorance of the term and what it represents, I&#8217;m not sure I agree that that is a good place to start. I would start by idenfying the company&#8217;s business strategy and how it supports this business strategy via key functions and activities. It is expertise about these key functions and activities that needs to be identified and managed. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m not saying that social relationships are unimportant. I&#8217;m just saying that an initial effort must be made to define as a baseline both a high level map of the knowledge needed to run the company &#8212; tied to the work that must be done to run the company &#8212; followed by a first cut at the identification of key experts in each of these knowledge areas. </p>
<p>Social relationships and patterns of communications and influence will come into play later on as initial baseline experts identify additional expert through a nomination and ranking process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
