Comments on: Knowledge Management 101?

By: air jordan 17

air jordan 17 — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:45:25 +0000

It looks good,I have learn a recruit!
Recently,I found an excellent online store, the
com-so.com
are completely various, good quality and cheap price,it’s worth buying!

By: Suresh D Nair

Suresh D Nair — Sun, 10 May 2009 12:13:44 +0000

I strongly believe that KM is something which has to done and not said. In most of our organisation – they say KM and end up doing IT upgradation; some information sharing here and there – not looking into the need of the organisation. KM is managing the information, that has to be understood by the employees to carry out the business effectively. KM can also be said as capturing of “K” and making it available to the concerned at the right time. As commented earlier, I also believe that the conversion of tacit to explicit is very important.

By: Batman

Batman — Fri, 08 May 2009 11:29:41 +0000

Ok, for those of us that tuned in late, I'm guessing you've already covered the part where the knowledge base is only as good as the data put in, therefore the management of how the data is turned into useful information is key, so that the resulting 'expert' system can be used by anyone within the company, as a useful tool.

If this is indeed the case, as a freelancer, e.g. a company of one, I don't need to create a place wherein my expertise can be freely given away, as I'd want to be hired by you to disseminate it in a useful manner, relative to you. I'd rather you hire me, then buy my 'app'.

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Fri, 08 May 2009 06:54:25 +0000

Thanks very much, Tony. Perhaps the warning in all of this is to be very suspicious of simplistic or mechanistic explanations of knowledge management. Until we've pushed past KM 101, we won't really be able to have a positive impact on our organizations.

- Mary

By: tony joyce

tony joyce — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:20:17 +0000

I whole heartedly agree! Knowledge management is not for idiots. It requires deep introspection and constant reassessment of whatever we think knowledge might be. The result is a rather mutable view of knowledge at the KM 102 and above level. There seem to be few clear paths but many nuanced trails, and the discussions turn quickly into academic arguments. So, please don't be surprised if you find that even with trusted collegues the discussions turn out as “lather, rinse and repeat.” (Or is it “blather, rince and repeat?”)

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Thu, 07 May 2009 04:40:04 +0000

It turns out that there's a lively conversation about this post taking place on FriendFeed. Here's the link if you'd like to check it out and, better still, participate: http://friendfeed.com/iphigenie/27886378/knowle...

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Thu, 07 May 2009 04:09:39 +0000

Thanks very much, Bill. The idea of using tools to "amplify" person to person interactions is far better than using tools to replace those interactions. When knowledge management got hijacked by the technology crowd, we lost something fundamental in our understanding of our discipline. With the passage of time, however, we're seeing that technology that doesn't account appropriately for human nature ultimately fails. Further, we've been reminded that the basic human impulses regarding learning and sharing knowledge are fairly constant and should be considered seriously in our planning.

Please do come back here and leave another comment once you're through cogitating. This is a subject worthy of a long conversation.

- Mary

By: Bill Roberts

Bill Roberts — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:01:07 +0000

I think you've really hit the nail on the head here: identifying the need to think about human nature first and technology second. I think that probably translates into supporting a bottom-up 'freestyle' approach to knowledge sharing, and tools that act as an amplifier to person-to-person interactions.

I'll mull it over some more and get back to you if my ideas form themselves into anything more concrete!