Comments on: KM Should Be An Absent Clockmaker

By: Mary Abraham

Mary Abraham — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:17:39 +0000

The windmill – treadmill analogy is a good one. Thank you for passing it along.

- Mary

By: zyxo

zyxo — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:16:14 +0000

I found this nice comparison once : KM 2.0 should be a windmill, not a treadmill (http://zyxo.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/windmill-or-treadmill/)

By: Mary Abraham

Mary Abraham — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:14:10 +0000

Atul –

I didn’t mean to suggest that KM should own the content or the interactions. However, KM sometimes finds itself solely responsible for locating and contributing content or exercising quality control over the content contributed or moderating the discussions. And these aren’t always situations caused by KM, but rather imposed on KM by colleagues who don’t feel fully authorized to act themselves or simply are disinclined to help themselves. (See, for example, Wendy Reynolds’ comments.)

- Mary

By: Atul Rai

Atul Rai — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 06:58:55 +0000

quite agree with you, Mary. KM should indeed be the facilitator, but i dont see KM as owning the content, or the interactions.

http://atulrai1.blogspot.com/2008/07/content-ownership-and-role-of-km.html

Some thoughts i penned on this.

thanks, Atul.

By: Mary Abraham

Mary Abraham — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:32:10 +0000

Wendy –

That phenomenon is familiar to lots of KM folks. It’s a challenging situation when your colleagues are stuck in a KM 1.0 frame of mind and aren’t ready (or willing) to think about the pleasures of self-sufficiency. It’ll be interesting to see how they cope with KM 2.0.

- Mary

By: Wendy Reynolds

Wendy Reynolds — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:50:13 +0000

I’ve actually experienced the opposite problem, where my colleagues think that it’s my job to contribute their work product to repositories, to build the structures and then maintain them! This is a nice, clear expression of the aspirations of KM. Good luck to us all in achieving them.