Defining Knowledge Management and Enterprise 2.0 – Sharing Your Story

29 thoughts on “Defining Knowledge Management and Enterprise 2.0 – Sharing Your Story”

  1. On my site, archestra, I’m occasionally offering things like KM definitions or descriptions of web 2.0 … here is a recent KM excerpt:

    “For the most part, knowledge is a “resource” and management is a practice that pursues the efficient and effective application of a resource to operational performance requirements. But let’s be far more specific.

    As for distinguishing knowledge from other resources, we like the value-chain model that shows data becoming information through modeling, and information becoming knowledge through practical utilitarian relevance to a context or presumed circumstance.

    In effect, knowledge is a status, not a material — very much similar to “health”. This helps to identify what is at stake when managing it, as well as suggesting what kind of risks accompany neglecting it.”

    If that seems interesting, you might like to visit the site and scan the KM and Web 2.0 items.

  2. ROAD MAPPING THE IMPLICATIONS IN TREATING KNOWLEDGE AS SUBJECT

    For the first time Knowledge is treated as subject already behaving as ‘Having Consciousness – Dynamic – Free Will (Mind plus Value) – Active, contrary to Information which is still as Object – Static – Pasive

    Some implications will be noted. First, defining KM will be somewhat different as follow : KM is the staging of Human Enlightment process – The process is to managing the transformation of Information content into Knowledge and beyond – The goals are towards Learning, Growth and Innovation – The management should leveraged by KM Standards, KM Tools and KM Process Framework. Second, human born as Knowledge process. Third, KM is an access mechanism that can be used across any management tool type. Fourth, there is analogy of Human Body Genome with organizational KM. Fifth, the real Epistemology and Ontology of KM could be found and KM hypothetically could becoming ‘Theory of Everything’ (TOE) in Management sciences. This in turn will give new amazing implications

    We’ve developed the roadmap of the implications above mentioned. You could follow the roadmap through the Link http://mobeeknowledge.ning.com/forum/topics/road-mapping-the-implications – ‘ROAD MAPPING THE IMPLICATIONS IN TREATING KNOWLEDGE AS SUBJECT’

    Regards,

    Dr Md Santo
    • E-mail : moesdar@gmail.com
    • URL http://mobeeknowledge.ning.com (currently 322 members from 22 countries)
    • Follow me on Twitter : http://twitter.com/md_santo
    • Connect with me on Linkedin : http://www.linkedin.com/in/bluemoonmobee
    • Add me as a friend on Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=566704069&ref=profile

  3. I like the way this topic is moving from blog to blog, like those dinners Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald hosted, where they ate each course at a different restuarant. But I still I think everybody is afraid to walk up to the elephant in the room.

    Nick Milton tells a good story about what it means to possess knowledge. Knowledge enables us to interpret information and act on it. There’s a lovely phrase “taking something into account” which reminds us that before accounting was a numbers game, it was about storytelling, and it was about being accountable to one’s colleagues.

    When we talk about KM, we invoke a management function that sits between knowledge and the people who act on it. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, I’d say, if it treats knowledge as a status or a resource. What matters above all, is the quality of managers’ performances and decision making.

    Gregory House may be the best doctor in the world, but when he examines a patient, how much knowledge does he take into account? And what does KM do to improve that?

    1. Luis, I love your blog. Es muy interesante y me hace pensar mucho!

      I am wondering (out loud) if when we are all able to let go of the need to define KM or KS whether we will then understand it on a deeper level. I think when we do (let go of the need to define it), we will be practicing knowledge sharing without having to think about it…it will then be second nature to us.

      I am just trying to come to terms with how to inspire knowledge sharing in a organizational culture that is suspicious of anything KM related…any advice greatly appreciated! 🙂

  4. I love David Gurteen’s cake metaphor, on data, information and knowledge, and it is a story I tell over and over:

    “An analysis of its molecular constituents is data – for most purposes not very useful – you may not even be able to tell it were a cake. A list of ingredients is information – more useful – an experienced cook could probably make the cake – the data has been given context. The recipe though would be knowledge – written knowledge – explicit knowledge – it tells you how-to make the cake. An inexperienced cook however, even with the recipe might not make a good cake. A person, though, with relevant knowledge, experience, and skill – knowledge in their heads – not easily written down – tacit knowledge – would almost certainly make an excellent cake from the recipe.”

    From: http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/ksculture

  5. Many good thoughts and perspectives in this post! Lots of stuff to steal 😉

    I personally like to think of knowledge management as the fostering of an environment where people who choose to do something together (enterprises) can discover, create, exchange and retain any knowledge that is somehow relevant to their shared purpose.

  6. All too often, the debate gets caught up in what the technology must be rather than how it must be used.

    This happened in debates about blogs and wikis too. See What is a Blog? A Wiki? – http://traction.tractionsoftware.com/traction/permalink/Blog372

    And, as you discuss here, the definition of KM 2.0 and E2.0 are always changing and up for debate. I think what’s important is the ideas, like emergence and its role, vs. how the word “emergence” shows up in the definition. See Structuring for Emergence – http://traction.tractionsoftware.com/traction/permalink/Blog1130

  7. For the need to have a definition for Enterprise 2.0 and Knowledgemangent,

    Coming from a person who just started on KM and E2.0 work, it is required as it helps shape and scope the domain for the learner and helps the person learning journey. However with so many definitions it can be quite confusing for the learner.

    From the perspective of getting work done, I do favour story telling as it is through it that we share our experience and knowledge and learn from there so as get our work done in a more effective and efficient manner.

    Do let me know if I make sense here. I just started my enjoying and for now enjoy getting lost in it for there is so much to learn.

  8. Responding to Sunny —

    As for the learner – It helps to understand the range of definitions and how people view the problems solved by E2.0 and KM 2.0 approaches.

    As for the end-user: I think they shouldn’t have to consider these issues at all. They should load up a system and do their work. My best customers don’t call TeamPage a “blog” or “wiki” – its their “Intelligence Central” or “Project Dashboard.” They understand it as a solution rather than a technology.

    Jordan

  9. You’d think Knowledge Management (KM), that venerable IT-based social engineering discipline which came up with evocative phrases like “community of practice,” “expertise locater,” and “knowledge capture,” would be in the vanguard of the 2.0 revolution. You’d be wrong. Inside organizations and at industry fora today, every other conversation around social media (SM) and Enterprise 2.0 seems to turn into a thinly-veiled skirmish within an industry-wide KM-SM shadow war.

  10. I’m not sure how much irony was intended in Business management’s comment, but I’d like to remind people that “Communities of Practice” were being didcussed many years before KM (Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger published in 1991, I think).

    Also, this year marks the 10th anniversary of Swan, Scarborough and Preston’s paper “Knowledge Management – the Next Fad to Forget People?” Time for sober reflection, perhaps.

  11. I would like to comment that Knowledge management refers to strategies and structures for maximizing the return on intellectual and information resources. KM depends on both cultural and technological processes of creation, collection, sharing, recombination and reuse. The goal is to create new value by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of individual and collaborative knowledge work while increasing innovation and sharpening decision-making.

  12. To add to the mix of definitions is that Knowledge Management is applied differntly by Support, Government, Law and Enterprise practitioners. If we took the 63 definitions and conducted polls amongst the four groups, a different winner will bubble to the surface for each. At the help desk, we try to capture the knowledge and reuse by agent or end user. Following the Knowledge Centered Support methodology, the agent and end user are just quickly moving through the motions and are not expected to retain the knowledge. The knowledge is wrapped with tagging, metadata, controls, etc. to maintain its functionality to both the end user and the business. Anyone out there know of good reading which discusses the subtle differences between the groups? Cheers, Matt

  13. To add to the mix of definitions is that Knowledge Management is applied differntly by Support, Government, Law and Enterprise practitioners. If we took the 63 definitions and conducted polls amongst the four groups, a different winner will bubble to the surface for each. At the help desk, we try to capture the knowledge and reuse by agent or end user. Following the Knowledge Centered Support methodology, the agent and end user are just quickly moving through the motions and are not expected to retain the knowledge. The knowledge is wrapped with tagging, metadata, controls, etc. to maintain its functionality to both the end user and the business. Anyone out there know of good reading which discusses the subtle differences between the groups? Cheers, Matt

    Matt Haggerty
    Read my blog: http://www.ridgehead.com/blog
    Connect with me: http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthaggerty
    Follow my tweets: http://www.twitter.com/ridgehead

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.