Comments on: Drinking Champagne

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:30:55 +0000

Testing the concoction. Sounds like a useful activity for knowledge
managers ... and witches!

All joking aside, we should not underestimate the importance of practicing
what we preach. Our congregation can spot a hypocrite a mile away.

- Mary

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:30:55 +0000

By: Mark Gould

Mark Gould — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:50:39 +0000

In the abstract, I agree — allocating responsibility is not a black/white question. The point I meant was that it is only by testing the concoction that one can tell if it is champagne or something noxious, but we should always be conscious that poison is just as likely as pleasure. (It always amuses me that for Germans, Gift is poison. I wonder if the Trojans felt similarly about the gift they were presented with.)

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:11:56 +0000

Undoubtedly. However, the first step is to taste it ourselves!

- Mary

By: Atle Iversen

Atle Iversen — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:50:18 +0000

We should *definitely* make KM more like champagne

And I guess that if it tastes like dog-food, we're more likely to improve it ?

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:34:10 +0000

Atle -

Whether we're producing dog food or champagne, the key is that we should
consume it just like our intended audience. Unless we practice what we
preach, we'll find that our so-called solutions don't come close to
answering the needs of our endusers.

Perhaps our other goal should be to make KM more like champagne and less
like dog food. Is it really necessary for all of us to suffer through the
dog food?

- Mary

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:29:54 +0000

Mark -

Just for the sake of discussion, what would happen if we applied a concept
along the lines of contributory negligence? For example, endusers may not
adopt the latest KM offering because the KM staff didn't do a good job of
creating or explaining the tool. In addition, perhaps that user isn't
desperate enough to overcome inertia to learn something new. All too often,
it isn't the case that one side or the other is completely in the wrong.
Sometimes both have contributed to the mess. In any event, a good way to
reduce the culpability of KM is to ensure that we practice what we preach
AND that we work to gain a clear understanding of what our users need.

- Mary

By: Atle Iversen

Atle Iversen — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:52:54 +0000

The point of “eating your own dog food” is that you are willing to “share the pain” with your customers by using the product you're offering yourself (and to demonstrate that yes, it is actually “eatable”).

“Drinking your own champagne” is a bit silly in this context, as *nobody* would have any problem with that (well, very few, anyway). I wouldn't be very impressed if somebody told me that “this champagne is so good that I'm even drinking it myself”….

If people feel your KM system is like Champagne, it won't be very hard to get people onboard. But I think most people feel that KM is more like dog food – and showing that you're prepared to eat your own dog food is much more impressive than drinking your own champagne

By: Mark Gould

Mark Gould — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:29:57 +0000

I can empathise with your description of the 'pity party'. The one that puzzles me is how few KM people share their own knowledge and insights by blogging.

Anyway… There is another thing to bear in mind when the drinks start to flow at that party. How does the champagne taste? Is it actually more like dog food? When I experience a setback in the form of poor attendance at a training session, inattention at meetings, or lack of use of the latest snazzy system, my second thought (after “lazy ingrates”) is that something was wrong with what was on offer. More often than not, if people don't make use of what is on offer it is because it isn't very attractive, not that it is attractive but something else gets in the way.