<?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: IBM Lotus Connections &#8211; We the Knowledge Managers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/</link>
	<description>A blog about Knowledge Management, Communities, Collaboration, Learning, Social Computing and Work/Life Balance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:56:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis Suarez</title>
		<link>http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/comment-page-1/#comment-106201</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis Suarez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:19:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/#comment-106201</guid>
		<description>Hi folks ! Thanks ever so much for sharing those thoughtful comments and for adding some really good input to the overall conversation. I thought it would be quite handy actually to share them both as a new weblog entry so that other folks who may have missed them may get a chance to go through them and add further up into the conversation. You can find the follow up weblog entry over &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.elsua.net/2007/03/05/knowledge-management-10-vs-knowledge-management-20/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.
&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and for dropping by !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi folks ! Thanks ever so much for sharing those thoughtful comments and for adding some really good input to the overall conversation. I thought it would be quite handy actually to share them both as a new weblog entry so that other folks who may have missed them may get a chance to go through them and add further up into the conversation. You can find the follow up weblog entry over <a href="http://www.elsua.net/2007/03/05/knowledge-management-10-vs-knowledge-management-20/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
<p>Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and for dropping by !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: E L S U A ~ A KM Blog by Luis Suarez &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Knowledge Management 1.0 vs. Knowledge Management 2.0</title>
		<link>http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/comment-page-1/#comment-106199</link>
		<dc:creator>E L S U A ~ A KM Blog by Luis Suarez &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Knowledge Management 1.0 vs. Knowledge Management 2.0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:15:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/#comment-106199</guid>
		<description>[...] And to showcase some of that, here you have got two different comments that have been shared over here in a weblog entry that I have shared a few days ago and which come to complement each other and  differentiate, quite nicely, what Knowledge Management 1.0 (KM 1.0) is versus Knowledge Management 2.0 (KM 2.0). The first set of comments about the state of KM 1.0 have been shared by Dennis Howlett, one of the folks whose weblog I have recently started aggregating to my feed client and which I have been enjoying quite a bit already!, and the second set of comments comes from the one and only, James Dellow, who actually provides a spot on reflection of the next generation of Knowledge Management: KM 2.0. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] And to showcase some of that, here you have got two different comments that have been shared over here in a weblog entry that I have shared a few days ago and which come to complement each other and  differentiate, quite nicely, what Knowledge Management 1.0 (KM 1.0) is versus Knowledge Management 2.0 (KM 2.0). The first set of comments about the state of KM 1.0 have been shared by Dennis Howlett, one of the folks whose weblog I have recently started aggregating to my feed client and which I have been enjoying quite a bit already!, and the second set of comments comes from the one and only, James Dellow, who actually provides a spot on reflection of the next generation of Knowledge Management: KM 2.0. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Dellow</title>
		<link>http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/comment-page-1/#comment-105359</link>
		<dc:creator>James Dellow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:04:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/#comment-105359</guid>
		<description>Next generation KM (KM 2.0 if you like) has already arrived, its just the enterprise technology is finally catching up...&quot;This next generation of knowledge management is more interested in social networks and the flow of knowledge between the people in them, than content management as we saw in the past. This latest evolution is reflected in the new Australian Standard for Knowledge Management (AS 5037-2005) published in October 2005.&quot; Source: Knowledge Management: How to separate the wheat from the chaff http://users.bigpond.com/chieftech/downloads/kmwheatchaff.pdf (PDF, 108KB)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Next generation KM (KM 2.0 if you like) has already arrived, its just the enterprise technology is finally catching up&#8230;&#8221;This next generation of knowledge management is more interested in social networks and the flow of knowledge between the people in them, than content management as we saw in the past. This latest evolution is reflected in the new Australian Standard for Knowledge Management (AS 5037-2005) published in October 2005.&#8221; Source: Knowledge Management: How to separate the wheat from the chaff <a href="http://users.bigpond.com/chieftech/downloads/kmwheatchaff.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://users.bigpond.com/chieftech/downloads/kmwheatchaff.pdf</a> (PDF, 108KB)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dennis Howlett</title>
		<link>http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/comment-page-1/#comment-104910</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennis Howlett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:09:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/#comment-104910</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s another side to this as well. Traditional KM was not really about knowledge but the management of secrets. By that I mean that management had become so frightened by compliance - especially SOX - that they needed and wanted an iron grip control over the environment. They got that OK but completely stifled creativity in the process so rather than freeing up creativity, they locked it down. What we&#039;re now seeing is KM as it should be - no constraints.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s another side to this as well. Traditional KM was not really about knowledge but the management of secrets. By that I mean that management had become so frightened by compliance &#8211; especially SOX &#8211; that they needed and wanted an iron grip control over the environment. They got that OK but completely stifled creativity in the process so rather than freeing up creativity, they locked it down. What we&#8217;re now seeing is KM as it should be &#8211; no constraints.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis Suarez</title>
		<link>http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/comment-page-1/#comment-104229</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis Suarez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/#comment-104229</guid>
		<description>Hi Jon ! Thanks a lot for dropping by and for the feedback ! Yes, I think so, too. At least, I have been advocating for it for a couple of years and I am really glad to see / read how more and more people seem to be agreeing that it is perhaps now a good time to move on. I just hope we would be able to learn from the past on what worked and what didn&#039;t and use it to our best execution of KM 2.0, because the way I see it I bet it is going to be way too much fun and exciting ! So, &lt;b&gt;bring it on!&lt;/b&gt; :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jon ! Thanks a lot for dropping by and for the feedback ! Yes, I think so, too. At least, I have been advocating for it for a couple of years and I am really glad to see / read how more and more people seem to be agreeing that it is perhaps now a good time to move on. I just hope we would be able to learn from the past on what worked and what didn&#8217;t and use it to our best execution of KM 2.0, because the way I see it I bet it is going to be way too much fun and exciting ! So, <b>bring it on!</b> <img src='http://www.elsua.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Husband</title>
		<link>http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/comment-page-1/#comment-104039</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Husband</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:49:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.elsua.net/2007/02/28/ibm-lotus-connections-we-the-knowledge-managers/#comment-104039</guid>
		<description>Dave Snowden would say we are past ready for 
KM 2.0, I think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave Snowden would say we are past ready for<br />
KM 2.0, I think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

