Tags: APQC, APQC2007, Knowledge Management, KM, Knowledge Sharing, KM Events, Innovation, KM Training, KM Learning, Communities, Communities of Practice, CoPs, Social Computing, Social Software, Social Networking, KM 1.0, KM 2.0, KM Processes, Strategy, People, Technology, Processes, Houston, Metrics, KM Metrics, Measurements, KM Measurements, KM Business Value, Business Value

Over the last couple of days I have been sharing a couple of weblog posts on the recent APQC KM & Innovation event I attended last week in Houston for the first time. Those couple of entries were around the subject of the two day training I attended on KM: Strategies and Tactics for Business Results. The third day of the KM related training was actually around one of the subjects for which I have always had an additional interest, not because of its nature itself, but more because of how complex it actually is on its own. That is right, I am talking about measuring the business value of KM. And that was exactly the one day training I attended: Measuring the Impact of Knowledge Management.

Overall the course itself was rather interesting and stimulating as we were able to come up with a number of good examples and resources on how to gather some metrics that could then be used to show the business value of KM within the business world. Quite interesting, indeed, and very enlightening, specially for those folks who are just getting introduced into the topic. In that respect, a highly recommended course on its own.

However, given that I have been involved in the field of KM for several years now and given the fact I was actually introduced into the world of KM by measuring its value way back in time already, I must admit that I was looking for something else. Perhaps a bit more of an advanced course on what else is out there in order to measure KM and its potential value.

At the beginning of the one day course we were actually divided in small groups where we had to introduce each other in order to get to know us a little bit better and then we had to come up with five different expectations, as a group, of what we wanted the course to cover, i.e. the learning objectives. And, of course, we got down to work. We all came with a number of different expectations and one of them was actually one that I put together myself and along the same lines of what I have described above.

A bit more of an advanced take on KM measurements and I, therefore, submitted the expectation of learning how to measure the business value of Communities (of Practice). Yes, I know, initially not as easy as you would expect, right? Specially when most of the times it is not that easy to measure them, which brings me to my next point. While I do understand and realise about the need to measure the value of KM (And communities, for instance) from a pure business perspective, so that it can be funded and so forth, over time I have started to doubt of the benefits from doing such thing. I have never been bought into the value of providing KM metrics, throughout all these years I am still not convinced about it.

And as time has gone by, and along with the advent of the social computing space within the KM arena it is not going to help much at all either. On the contrary, it will shake the ground big time because apart from the difficulties of providing same very valid KM metrics from what we would know as traditional KM we are now facing a much larger issue which is basically figuring out a way to measure all of that unstructured information and knowledge that is scattered around different various tools, different communities, different knowledge workers.

I feel that is where the main challenge is at the moment, because that is where we are all heading with regards to KM. Long gone are the times where we were able to measure the value of KM by the different interactions with traditional KM tools from an individual perspective. Things are completely different now, because on top of that we have got, if anything, we need to combine that approach with some fresh and new ideas coming around from the good amount of unstructured knowledge that is getting across multiple organisations. How are we going to measure that? How are we going to measure the value that communities are providing to the core business while working with that particular unstructured information? How can we justify the existence of those communities, if we ever would need to, which I very seriously doubt? In the current business environment and with the emergence of social software tools is it really still applicable to find measures for what may un-measurable all along?

As you can see, I had plenty of questions that I was hoping I would be able to get some answers on, but alas it didn’t happen. At least, on this one day training I attended last week I didn’t get a chance to go through them since it pretty much covered the basics on KM metrics from the traditional point of view, and not from the emerging next generation of KM we are seeing being embraced within the corporate world and which I am sure it is going to drive the different interactions and conversations over the next few years around the world of Knowledge Sharing. So I am hoping that in future years this particular course on Measuring the Impact of Knowledge Management (Again, a real pity that I cannot share across any of the contents as I just got licensed print-outs) will get updated in order to incorporate the new wave of KM, because otherwise I doubt it would ever validate itself as meaningful and resourceful for those folks interested in such topic.

Myself? Well, I am still looking for that magic bullet that would help me convince myself that there is value in measuring both the traditional KM and its next generation. So far I haven’t been able to come up with a convincing method to provide consistent KM measurements that would help convince not only managers, but also knowledge workers, on why it is worth while investing time and effort in sharing your knowledge with others and prove that business value.

Pretty much like I mentioned yesterday with spending your time in doing better things than coming up with a good KM definition, the same would apply over here. I still feel there are much more important things out there to worry about than to measure what may not be measurable in the first place. Say, how do you measure your own knowledge? Any ideas? If you know the answer to that question I would love to know, because so far I haven’t been able to come up with an argument that I could buy myself before even trying to convince others.

Tags: APQC, APQC2007, Knowledge Management, KM, Knowledge Sharing, Collaboration, KM Events, Innovation, KM Training, KM Learning, Communities, Social Computing, Social Software, Social Networking, KM Disconnect, KM 1.0, KM 2.0, KM Processes, Tacit Knowledge, Explicit Knowledge, Strategy, People, Technology, Processes, Blogs, Wikis, Social Bookmarks, Tagging, Podcasts, Narrative, Sensemaking, Houston, Storytelling, KM Definitions

The following weblog post is actually a little bit more of the continuation from the one I shared yesterday around the subject of APQC KM & Innovation 2007 - Knowledge Management: Strategies and Tactics for Business Results where I am planning to cover as well some of the different thoughts and ideas I came across during the two days of training around Knowledge Management: Strategies and Tactics for Business Results. Again these are my own take on most of the things that got covered. So, hopefully, we can get the conversations going, although at the moment it kind of feels a bit lonely. We shall see how things will progress from here.

The first thought I would want to go cover, something that I have already mentioned and discussed on the first weblog post I created, has got to do with the subject of making the APQC KM & Innovation event a little bit more public than what was originally planned. Yes, that is right, for an event dealing with the subject of Knowledge Sharing and collaboration you would expect that it would be a bit more open about the sharing part. Yes, I do realise that the materials are licensed, at least, the ones from the training materials of the three days we covered initially, but then again, what is the point of doing a KM & Innovation event if you cannot share with others the different materials you get exposed to over the course of the days?

Yes, I know, you can see that is still bugging me and quite a bit! How can we go about promoting such KM events when we actually keep all of that information and knowledge from reaching wider audiences and get more conversations around this very same subject? Isn’t that what knowledge sharing is all about? I mean, I have yet to witness the first social computing event where they have used a similar attitude, and I bet some of the content is just as sensitive as whatever I may have gotten exposed to during the course of last week, but content still makes it to larger audiences, like it is always supposed to do, if you are really on to the knowledge sharing thing. Yet, it hasn’t happened.

Later on this week I will actually be creating a series of weblog posts detailing the different sessions I attended during the two day event, including the one I was co-presenting with some other folks. And my initial intention is to actually go ahead and share the slide deck as well. Yes, if I have got a good understanding of preaching what I talk regarding KM I guess that is the least I could well do, don’t you think? Let’s see how that will go. For the time being, here are some additional comments on some of the things that I found worth while commenting on.

Top to bottom Knowledge Management: One of the recurring ideas behind the first two days of the KM training I attended had to do with embracing a more formal approach, top-to-bottom, regarding the adoption (Or push, I probably could say better) of Knowledge Management. Yes, indeed, traditional KM at its best, where everything around KM seems to delve around the subject of management using a top-down approach to push KM down to the practitioners through, of course, a whole bunch of complex processes that hardly anyone cares about, nor understands, or embraces.

This is something that in the past it may have worked to some extent, although if you look into it carefully I doubt it has been as effective as what some people may say. If not, let’s have a look into the recent past and see where KM was heading. As I continue to get more and more involved with social computing, things are changing. And fast! I am not sure any longer a traditional KM approach would be relevant in the current business environment, specially since Knowledge Sharing is coming back thanks to the push from the knowledge workers themselves, i.e. bottom-up approach, as they become much more collaborative not only sharing their knowledge and expertise with others, but also sharing something that I have always found incredibly powerful and enriching: their own social capital.

This is why, like I have been mentioning a couple of times, I was actually expecting to learn some more about a blended approach where Knowledge Management would be looked at both from a traditional perspective, where you get to learn what worked and bear in mind what didn’t (Which I still feel is incredibly helpful since we get to learn a whole lot more from what has gone wrong than what has worked best - More on that later!) to then try to incorporate the next generation of KM.

So much so that if you are getting ready to put together (Or starting to review!) your own KM strategy it probably makes sense to incorporate that blended approach. More than anything else, because from what I could see, during those couple of days, the training was still missing how the knowledge workers are shifting gears about sharing content that most businesses never thought, nor dreamed off having! And in some cases the corporate world hasn’t come to terms with it just yet. So how can you ignore that? Should you? … I don’t think so.

Defining Knowledge Management: In one of the different slides that got shared at the very beginning we actually covered and discussed what everyone seems to have been busy with lately. Coming up with a convincing definition for Knowledge Management. Again. This is something that I have covered in the past a few times already, but for the sake of coming around to it here it is:

"Systematic approaches to help information and knowledge flow:

- to the right people
- at the right time
- in the right format
- at the right cost

so they can act more efficiently and effectively.

Find, understand, share and use knowledge to create value

Knowledge if information in action"

Back then, and just as I am writing this particular weblog post, I am not convinced about this particular definition. There are a number of things that I do not feel are representative enough of what KM is. Systematic is probably the last word I would use in such definition about KM, because if there is anything clear is that KM hasn’t got anything to do with the concept of system(s). Yet we keep coming up with finding that killer KM definition that will answer all of our concerns. For how long? How much effort and energy we would need to spend on finding something that we may not even need in the first place!?!

I think that we would be much better off actually if we would just focus on other important and relevant items around knowledge sharing like helping knowledge workers understand what their potential role may well be and how they can embrace it to help them become better at what we do. After all there are already a whole bunch of KM definitions out there that we could reuse all over the place. Check out "The Essence of Knowledge Management" for some of my favourites.

Oh, and if you are wondering when I am going to be coming up with a definition of my own, I guess you already know the answer. There are other interesting things to do and engage with, I am sure, specially when the experts have been sharing some really good approaches to it already.

Narrative and sensemaking (Storytelling): Finally, one of the items that I have been very pleased with seeing it come up repeatedly over and over again is the fact that storytelling, i.e. narrative and sensemaking, is starting to grab a whole lot more momentum and attention on how it can help not only promote KM principles, but also to help measure and quantify some of the business value from Knowledge Management all along.

That is right, folks, in case you may not be looking into it just yet, narrative will become, if not already, a key and fundamental approach towards helping knowledge workers understand how KM operates at the same time that it would start getting used as a powerful option to help convince businesses (And knowledge workers themselves) of the business value from KM. Stay tuned around this very same subject, because I am going to cover it in much more detail at a later time.

The interesting thing about all this is how social computing tools are actually going to become even much more relevant in helping embrace narrative within the corporate world as it would allow capturing and sharing knowledge across the board, because that is what we are already doing with blogs, wikis, podcasts, vodcasts, etc. etc. Telling stories! Exciting stuff, indeed!

And that would be it, folks, a good lengthy summary from the first couple of days attending the KM: Strategies and Tactics for Business Results. Tomorrow I will actually be sharing another review around the subject of the second KM training I attended on measuring KM, but that would be the subject for another article.

Tags: APQC, APQC2007, Knowledge Management, KM, Knowledge Sharing, Collaboration, KM Events, Innovation, KM Training, KM Learning, Communities, Social Computing, Social Software, Social Networking, KM Disconnect, KM 1.0, KM 2.0, KM Processes, Tacit Knowledge, Explicit Knowledge, Strategy, People, Technology, Processes, Blogs, Wikis, Social Bookmarks, Tagging, Podcasts, Narrative, Sensemaking, Houston

Phew! What an incredible week last week, folks! As you may have noticed I didn’t have a chance to share any further insights (Other than the initial first day weblog post) regarding the 2007 APQC KM & Innovation event that I was attending and which overall I have enjoyed it quite a bit, specially the two day event, towards the end of the week! So much so that, with all of the different networking opportunities I have been exposed to over the whole period, I have been neglecting posting several different weblog entries over here that I have got already in my drafts. But that is just going to end today. I just got back from Houston, earlier on this afternoon.

I was thinking about sharing some of those all along last week, but one thing led to another and before you knew it I had pretty much the entire day booked with some exciting conversations. So in the spirit of capturing some of those different conversations the following series of weblog posts are going to be dedicated to the APQC 2007 KM & Innovation event and my take from it. I also realise that plenty of folks have been sharing different comments in multiple entries and I do really appreciate that, too! Allow me to address each of them as well over the course of the next few days so that we can keep those conversations going. As you can see, I haven’t neglected those. Things have just been way too busy and I am really excited that they have been like that, because I have been able to make some really good and incredible connections. But let’s just go one step at a time.

To get it going, I am going to pick things up again from the last weblog article I created on the subject of attending the different APQC KM trainings for the first three days of the week.So here is a second entry on the subject. As I am getting to proof read it from my drafts, I must say that it does look like it is going to be a lengthy post, so I would probably suggest at this stage that you get up and make yourself a cup of coffee (Or tea) and enjoy it, because it will surely keep you reading for a little while.

As you would be able to see, all of these musings are my very own and although I will not be able to share any of the content made available through the print-outs, as there are some license fees to cover for, I will surely be going ahead and share some concrete items from the various materials we were provided with. Thus here it goes.

This particular weblog entry is the follow up from a previous post where I tried to share some further comments regarding the subject of the initial two day Knowledge Management training that I attended around the subject of Knowledge Management: Strategies and Tactics for Business Results. And along those same lines, I was hoping to be able to share that follow up as it would have been fresh and everything, but I guess that networking had a price attached to it as well. Yes, I know, hanging out at the bar, drinking a few beers while playing Puerto Rico can do that to you! And so much more!

So here I am sharing this particular weblog post after a few days have gone by and still immersed with the same feeling as I left the first day training. Even though a few days have gone by and I have had a chance to think about the event itself I still feel that those two days of KM training are actually providing some good ground for that KM disconnect that I have mentioned in the past. Don’t take me wrong, the course was fantastic and I really appreciate the trip down the memory lane, but that is exactly what it was: a reflection of what KM used to be in the 90s! However, disappointed that none of the new trends in Knowledge Management, specially with the emergence of social computing, were added into the mix while we were given a wrong impression of what is actually happening in this space at the moment.

One of the great things from the conference was the fact that there were plenty of folks who were relatively new to KM altogether, so it was a good opportunity for them to leverage what they have been doing already with some of the most experienced folks and somehow I felt throughout the training courses how we have actually lost a great opportunity to help those newcomers into KM avoid the very same mistakes that we made back in the 90s. Things have moved quite a bit since then and perhaps those different changes should have been incorporated already to provide a much more meaningful description of what is going on at the moment. Alas, it didn’t happen and, like I said, a missed opportunity to get things right from the very beginning. But there was hope, not to worry, although I will cover that one in another upcoming weblog post. Two, actually. Stay tuned!

Thus to comment further on that particular disconnect between KM 1.0 and KM 2.0 here are some thoughts I put together in my drafts just as I was attending the second day of training around the subject of Knowledge Management: Strategies and Tactics for Business Results and which I think would be making a nice connection to some of the thoughts I have shared already in the past.

Always on-line versus offline interactions: Yes, indeed, this is one of the things that I have noticed myself during the course of the event itself, including the training days. I was actually very surprised that throughout the event there weren’t many computers up and running with plenty of people making notes about the different sessions and discussions. Instead, most of us got to use a piece of paper and a pen to capture some of the different thoughts. If you check it out, there haven’t been many weblog entries posted thus far. Can you imagine seeing some of that in any of the different social computing events going on at the moment? I doubt it. It just doesn’t happen. So, in a way, I felt a bit intimidated that I would be probably one of the very very few with a computer trying to do some live con-blogging or, even, live twitterings. It just didn’t happen. A pity.

And I am saying that this was a missed opportunity, because it would have been the perfect event to share some further insights around the subject of KM sharing it all over the place with everyone out there who may be interested. Instead, we all got to jot down a few thoughts here and there in our notepads and, I am not sure what you would think about this, but I bet you all know where those notes are going to end up! Yes, exactly, rather in the trash can at some point or with your print-outs. Forever. Something that, again, I doubt it would ever happen in any of those different social computing conferences that we all have grown to become very used to.

Yes, certainly quite intimidating and interesting at the same time to see how all of that knowledge, experiences and further thoughts were stored locally, and without reaching further and beyond to whoever else may be interested in KM in general. Not sure what you would think, but that, to me, it sounds pretty much like good old KM 1.0. But you know what the funny part of it all was? Well, the instructor of the different educational sessions I attended did not say anything at all about not using the computers and, even more, there was FREE wireless connection throughout multiple rooms, including the lobby, with some really good speeds. Still not many online interactions…

To be honest, I would have liked seeing a whole bunch more of those KM folks venturing into the world of Internet blogs to share some of their insights with us and keep the conversations going during and after the event, because that is what will help fix the KM disconnect between KM 1.0 and KM 2.0 or, at least, start addressing some of the different issues. So to all of those folks who I have been talking to last week, and which I have mentioned how I was keeping myself busy with different blogs, here is an invitation for you to help address and fix some of that disconnect. Get started with your own blog today and get ready to continue the KM conversation(s)! We are really looking forward to them!

Knowledge Management versus grass-roots KM: One of the other things that I noticed as well was that most of the attendees to the different training sessions were identifying social computing as grass-roots KM, as opposed to just Knowledge Management, which is actually something that I have found interesting from the perspective that I have always thought that social computing has been, all along, an integral part of KM. And for a good number of years already! Remember what I have been saying all along over here all this time that a successful KM strategy is one that would combine, in a balanced way, People, Tools and Processes?

Well, that is where social computing has always been to me, perhaps a bit neglected or a bit in a dormant state, but certainly still very relevant all along. And yet I kept hearing all over the place how social networking is just still a grass-roots effort within KM to the point where there were some connotations that those grass-root efforts would take a few years before they will stick around. No, I actually do not think so. It’s already happening, folks! And big time! And whether you would want to join or not that would be another matter, but those grass-roots have been running for a good number of years already and I doubt they would be called grass-roots any longer today. Here is again that KM 1.0 vs. KM 2.0 disconnect.

We would probably need to issue a wake up call at this point in time, because whether we would like to admit it or not, knowledge workers are already embracing social computing tools to be able to share their knowledge and collaborate a lot easier with others. Thus I feel unless traditional KM doesn’t change its mind and starts engaging in the conversations we are going to have a serious problem. One, where, very shortly, we may not even talk about KM any longer. Perhaps that is incidentally one of the many reasons why knowledge workers have been having that negative connotation about Knowledge Management lately and why they keep on neglecting it in detriment of other terms like Knowledge Sharing, or Collaboration or, even, Social Computing itself. You name it!

I very much suspect that if Knowledge Management would want to come back into the spotlight it should stop making use of different terms like grass-roots for something that I doubt would be classified any longer as that, grass-roots, because more than anything else it has always been there. It is just now coming back placing the focus on where it should have been all along: the people! They would be the main pillar for this new wave of KM 2.0 interactions where they are already making extensive use of social software tools, in combination with a number of different processes and other traditional KM tools. And the blend is working, if you come to think how it is starting to impact the corporate world. There is, indeed, no way back! (At least, I wouldn’t want it!)

Finally, (I still hope that you are enjoying that cup of coffee or tea…) one of the other themes that I have seen throughout the first couple of days from the overall education sessions is the growing concern from KM 1.0 to be able to capture tacit knowledge, and failing to do so and not being able to come to terms with it. This is actually something that I will be touching base on in an upcoming weblog post regarding one of the different keynote sessions I attended which clearly has got a very good answer for this particular concern.

It surely is quite an exciting discussion, specially when most people do not realise that you will never be able to capture all of the tacit knowledge that a knowledge worker has got. You can certainly venture into capturing some of it, but not all of it. And the sooner we all get to acknowledge that, the better. But here is the thing: most folks are having serious issues about capturing that same tacit knowledge through the usage of traditional KM tools because of how difficult it actually is. No wonder. Of course, it is! And that is perhaps one of the main reasons why it has failed all along for a good number of years already! And still very much so.

You now may be wondering what you could do, right? Well, it may not be as difficult as whatever else you may have thought already. Yes, we may not be able to capture all of their tacit knowledge, but if there would be something very clear is that social computing does help quite a bit in this particular respect. By empowering knowledge workers to have their own blogs, wikis, social bookmarks, tagging, syndication of their favourite content, etc. etc. you would actually start capturing some of that same tacit knowledge I have been mentioning so far, specially with the overall usage of narrative and sensemaking. And in the end try you would all be in a much better position to integrate it all with already existing explicit knowledge repositories through the usage of meaningful and relevant search engines. And there you have it!: starting to combine the best of what KM 1.0 has got to offer with what KM 2.0 is already doing at the moment! Not a bad start, don’t you think?

And that would be it, folks, the time for the coffee or tea break is now over. These are some of the main thoughts that have gone through my mind in the first two days of training around the subject of "Knowledge Management: Strategies and Tactics for Business Results" and which, in my opinion, would start help fix some of that KM disconnect I discussed in a previous weblog entry. It may well not be the perfect approach to it all, but it would surely create the scenario to start the conversations(s) we are already missing at the moment, where the focus is coming back to where it should have been all along: empowering knowledge workers not only to share what they know with others, but also to allow them connect with one another in order to work smarter, without necessarily making it too harder, because that is what we are all after. I am sure. No doubt about it then. No doubt about it now.

Tags: APQC, APQC2007, Knowledge Management, KM, Knowledge Sharing, Collaboration, KM Events, Innovation, KM Training, KM Learning, Communities, Social Computing, Social Software, Social Networking, KM Disconnect, KM 1.0, KM 2.0, KM Processes, Tacit Knowledge, Explicit Knowledge, Twitter; Slideshare, Americas Restaurant, The Houstonian Hotel

As you may remember from a recent weblog post I created over here a few weeks ago, this week I am actually away from the office attending the APQC Knowledge Management and Innovation conference event. And although the event does not really start till Thursday this week I am actually over here attending a number of different Knowledge Management related training courses. Today has been the first day, out of two, for the first training I am attending after yesterday’s exhausting 25 hour transit plane trip! Something that I certainly wouldn’t recommend to anyone. Too much of a long trip, with too many stops and still recovering a bit from it. However, when I get back it will be worse, but we shall see about that one later on next week.

For now I am going to share some further thoughts around the first day of the training I was attending around the subject of Knowledge Management: Strategies and Tactics for Business Results. There are lots and lots of thoughts that have been crossing my mind during the course of the day itself, but since we actually had a fully packed agenda and very little time for live con-blogging, here is a quick review of my initial thoughts about the overall course. I have got plenty of notes jotted down with the materials we were all given, but I got those locked in the training room and forgot to bring them back to the room with me (Doh!), so you would have to wait for those for a later time. But they will come, not to worry.

However, if I were to describe with a single sentence the first day of the two day training we have done on Knowledge Management: Strategies and Tactics for Business Results it would be something along the lines of indicating how the session was incredibly beneficial for everyone out there who would want to see the state of Knowledge Management, but back in the late 90s. Yes, that is right. This is a two day course specially meant for those folks who would want to know how KM got done during the course of the late 90s and how, by the looks of it, there are still plenty of organisations out there who get to use most of that stuff.

In the training room we were 44 people, out of which 6 were outside of North America, one from Africa, one from the Middle East, and then another three from Europe, which got me thinking about how global KM has become, or rather, hasn’t. I was certainly expecting a whole lot more participation from Asia and Asia Pacific where specially some of the top KM innovation companies for the last few years are based in that region, yet no-one that I could find out was coming from there.

Perhaps an initial indication of something else that I have noticed myself and which I will mentioned shortly. But first I should probably mention how helpful the overall course may well be for those folks out there who would want to take KM back to the late 90s with something so controversial as placing the focus on something that, for quite a few people, was actually the worst thing that could have happened to KM: yes, indeed, the processes and the tools! Now, how many times have we seen this? I am not sure about you, but when I actually went through the first day (Perhaps tomorrow it will change) I had the strong sense that I was going through a history lesson on KM from the very first few years I got involved with KM itself (Talking here about 1996, till 1999).

I mean, the course itself would be very handy for all those folks who would want to have a very solid base as to what happened with KM throughout the years, what worked and, most importantly, what didn’t. To me it was a trip down the memory lane. But with a twist. A twist that is perhaps an indication of a recent set of events I have witnessed elsewhere where I am starting to feel like there is this huge and massive disconnect between what we would call traditional Knowledge Management and next generation of Knowledge Management, or, easier to remember, KM 1.0 vs. KM 2.0 and which very few people want to acknowledge at this stage.

Here is an example, of the 44 people who were attending the training session I was at as well, in between breaks and networking events, I tried to find out if there would be anyone out there from the list who would have been exposed to social computing, or KM 2.0, or not. And to my astonishment, I couldn’t. At least, I haven’t been able to find anyone thus far. In fact, when I checked the list of attendees I just couldn’t find anyone coming from that strong social computing background I was hoping for. Yes, bringing the best of social networking on to the table as well, since it is also part of the equation. Well, it just didn’t happen.

From all of that, I guess I got a strong confirmation that people doing work related to social computing are not very much interested in Knowledge Management, in general. In fact, I would venture to say that for them it is a dirty word still. And vice versa, people who still want to keep things very much like KM 1.0 are not interested in hearing some more about social software and the impact that is having within the corporate world empowering knowledge workers to share their knowledge and collaborate a lot easier and with a whole lot less hassle. Ouch! Yes, that is what I meant with a massive disconnect. And it is not a good thing.

It is not a good thing because we all know that focusing on just the tools or the processes might have been something that succeeded back in the late 90s, but not nowadays. Today the focus is pretty much around the subject of people and their own user-generated content, which, I must say, is also part of the equation, but not the overall picture either, because it would just focus on the people themselves forgetting a bit about processes and tools. And, like we all know, a successful KM strategy is one that combines into a perfect balance a focus on the people, on the tools and on the processes.

And so far, from what I have experienced today in this training course, that doesn’t seem to be happening. At least, not yet. It may take a few years before that happens, but somehow I have a strong feeling that knowledge workers are not going to wait that long. Their needs and their requirements are different and things change. And rather quick! KM 1.0, unfortunately, is very much stuck with keeping itself closer, from a traditional point of view, in focusing too much on the processes and tools aspects, respectively. I have actually been able to describe some of that through a good number of twitterings I have put together earlier on today. And, certainly, that was the main conclusion that I got from the first day at the APQC KM & Innovation event training course.

It is a long long way ahead to put together both KM 1.0 and KM 2.0 into a single unified knowledge sharing environment where everyone would be happy making use of it as something BAU and fully embedded into the current set of activities that each project has been working on already. And the fight is equally exciting, both from the perspective of promoting social computing within the more traditional KM and thinking of ways on how that traditional KM could adopt certain social software elements to help knowledge workers work smarter, and not necessarily harder.

As I said, I have got a few more notes that I have put together in my notepad to complete some of my thoughts shared above, but unfortunately, you would have to wait for that for a little while. Or alternatively, you can also watch my twitterings about this very same thing. And, finally, here is another huge massive disconnect between KM 1.0 and KM 2.0 that I have been exposed to and which I surely did not expect. And that is the fact that from the very first beginning I had the intention of sharing the content of the presentations I would be attending during the course of the week, elsewhere in both of my weblogs and Slideshare.net, perhaps. However, it looks like that is not going to happen, because all of the materials that we have received already are all print-outs and therefore extremely difficult to pass on and share it with wider audiences, whether they are your teams or communities or whatever else. So I will not be able to share some slides; yes, I know, a real pity, but it makes me wonder why a Knowledge Management organisation, very much involved into KM as a BAU process, does not take a bit more of a proactive approach into helping spread the message around Knowledge Sharing and allowing attendees to share those materials with the right audience, at the right time, at the right place / context. Go figure!

It sounds as if they would want to hide their knowledge from others, because they just may benefit from it, and they may not want to do that, but, again, is it really Knowledge Management what we are talking about in here then? Or is it more still along the lines of Knowledge Is Power vs. Knowledge Shared is Power? A huge disappointment, if you ask me, but a clear indication that we may not have progressed much from the state of KM coming from the late 90s. And this is probably a very good reason why we should still keep up with the fight and show everyone there are better ways of managing your own knowledge while sharing it with other knowledge workers across the board. Thus we shall see what day 2 of the training course will bring to us. It surely looks like it is going to be an interesting follow up from today. You see, so far, just checked Technorati and not a single mention of the APQC training courses and KM & Innovation event taking place later on this week. So I am going to tag this first initial post with APQC2007 and follow up from there.

Oh, two other things about the event so far. The hotel where we are is just wonderful! Free Ethernet and Wireless access in a charming place with some incredible surroundings and all the peace and quiet you can imagine. And if you ever fancy going for a good meal check out Americas. You will like it. I surely did and certainly enjoyed my Caipirinha and my Medallón )) (Pity I couldn’t get anymore in and try out some of those lovely deserts! I guess next time!)

Tags: YouTube, IBM, Collaboration, Communities, Knowledge Management, KM, Knowledge Sharing, Team Work, Fun

Over the last couple of days I have actually been creating rather long weblog entries on various topics, so since it is already Friday, I think I am going to keep this one short, but, hopefully, equally entertaining. It is actually a YouTube video that I bumped into from one of my fellow IBM colleagues, who shared it in his own blog behind the firewall, and which clearly comes to explain, very beautifully, what team work and collaboration are all about:

A bunch of people you probably hardly know, ready to chime in and participate when you really really need it, sharing their knowledge and experiences so that they can help you save the day in the most difficult of situations. Yes, indeed, this is the art of collaboration:

Have a good one, everyone!

Tags: Andrew McAfee, Enterprise 2.0, Web 2.0, Social Computing, Social Networking, Social Media, Social Software, Individual Performance, Group Performance, Teams, Communities, Knowledge Management, KM, Knowledge Sharing, Collaboration, Innovation, Workplace

Continuing further with the weblog posts that I created a couple of days ago around the subject of adopting social networking within the corporate world, here is this particular article that Andrew McAfee shared not long ago and which touches base on some of the different issues that are actually slowing down, quite a bit, that same adoption of social computing within the Enterprise. The Pursuit of Busyness surely makes for an interesting and revealing read as Andrew states how people "who use the new tools heavily will be perceived as not spending enough time on their ‘real’ jobs". Yes, I know, a really worth while read, specially for those folks who have been exposed to social software for a while and who are trying to convince others to jump into the social software bandwagon.

Andrew has been collecting lots of different feedback comments from his students for some time now and surprisingly most of that feedback seems to reflect on the fact that the more you get exposed, and make use of, social computing, the less busy other knowledge workers would think you are. You may say it is ridiculous that this may be happening still, while we are already in the 21st century, but the thing is that, after reading his article, I cannot but agree to a certain extent with what he says, because I have  as well been exposed to quite a lot of that myself over the course of the last few years.

However, there is one particular quote that I am not so sure I would agree with. This one:

"Companies in these sectors usually have results-oriented corporate cultures, but they also prize effort as well as results. They value hard work, long hours, and the appearance of progress toward bottom-line improvements. This tendency is probably particularly strong in consultancies, given their focus on billable hours."

Yes, I can accept most of those sectors would be very much results-oriented, focused on hard work, long hours and the appearance of bottom-line improvements, but that is not the whole thing. All of that is, indeed, rather accurate, but there is one missing aspect from Andrew’s assumption, and that is the fact that for a good number of years there has always been a huge focus, and push, for measuring and rewarding individual performance. Knowledge workers were (Still are, in most cases!) rewarded for their own individual performance regardless what teams or communities they belong to. Their membership to those different groups was never important, nor relevant enough.

Hanging out within those teams or communities has always been looked at  as lazing about, because you are hanging out with other knowledge workers, instead of doing your "real" job. So that negative connotation of belonging to the group is what is causing most of the harm. And here it comes social computing into the corporate world, trying to change things, and failing to some extent, but, lucky enough, not for all businesses. Social software really relies on the interactions with others, your team members or the rest of the community members. In order to make social networking work you need the group and since that connotation is still there lots and lots of knowledge workers have got different reservations about participating in "group activities" using whatever tools.

So to try to fix that I am wondering, what would happen if the enterprise world would start recognising the performance of the group (A team or a community), as opposed to the performance of the individual knowledge worker? What if businesses would start rating the performance of knowledge workers based on their interactions with the group, using whatever the tools the group has decided to make use of, in order to get the job done? What if the corporate world would start realising, once and for all, that "There is no I in TEAM" because "Together Everyone Achieves More". Yes, you may say that is a lot of corporate speak, but is it really? I mean, Andrew’s weblog article seems to indicate quite the opposite, doesn’t it?

In fact, even what he suggests as a potential solution to the problem is still based on the same fundamental mistakes we have been making all along: focusing on the individual performance is not going  to get you anywhere anymore, specially in such world as today’s where everything is inter-connected, inter-related and interwoven in such a way that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to survive in the marketplace on your own.

And this is where the adoption of social computing within the Enterprise will become increasingly more and more important, because the way I see it I bet that it will mark the beginning of the shift towards a much more collaborative, interactive and innovative workplace (While sharing knowledge across the board) and therefore it will be demanding out loud new methods of measuring the performance of not only the individual knowledge workers, but also of the teams and the communities they belong to, because through those different interactions they will manage to get the job done better, faster, cheaper and with plenty more quality.

Thus stop being frightened by what they may think about you and your own performance. That is no longer relevant. Now it is the time though when you need to get ready to start working smarter, not harder, become better at what you do and at the same time be able to keep up with your various relationships and connections with other knowledge workers, because those are the ones that will make you better at what you do. And no matter what people would tell you, social computing is going to play a huge role in helping you work much more effectively getting the job done while you and your team, or your community, will have moved already into the next challenge: keep on innovating!

It will be up to you now to decide who are you going to be listening to and I, in the mean time, would wonder who that would be… Remember that, after all, it is your choice, but chose wisely.