----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:07
AM
Subject: Re: [okmds-convene] Re-centering
the discussion
I know I'm going to hate myself for this, but I can't help but respond.
First of all, put five KM experts in a room and they'll come out with 25
definitions of KM. It's a pointless exercise, and arguments about what KM
"really" is are unproductive. So choose your own definition. I don't mean that
as an insult. I just don't want to participate in yet another discussion of
the meaning of KM.
That said, I confess to coming down on the technology side of KM. As my
friend Aw Kong Koy ("KK") of Multicentric Technologies says, "Without
technology, there is nothing new in Knowledge Management." KK also must be
credited with the observation, "You can't manage what you don't describe." And
you certainly can't "manage" knowledge directly. Part of the problem, of
course, is that the KM buzzword itself has way too many denotations and
connotations.
People have been blaming failures of "knowledge management initiatives" on
technology, in particular, for almost as long as we've been using the term
"knowledge management." (The epidemic rebranding of search technology as
knowledge management technology in the '90s certainly lent credibility to that
charge.) A couple years ago, KM guru Dave Snowden claimed that "up to 80% of
all KM initiatives fail to meet expectations." But neither point constitutes a
strong argument, let alone proof, that technology is not an important part of
whatever we are calling KM.
In fact, Mika and Akkermans pointed to one of the funniest remarks ever
about KM and technology:
"As summed up by one KM expert, 'If technology solves your problem yours
was not a knowledge-management problem.'" (Mika and Akkermans, "Towards a New
Synthesis of Ontology Technology and Knowledge Management," p. 6)
[The source of the quote may be: Ruggles, R. 1998. The state of the nation:
Knowledge management in practice. California Management Review, 40(3):
80-89]
Of course, that assertion is nonsense. It's a very self-serving strawman,
because no one ever claimed that pure technology solves all KM problems. And
it's reminiscent of another observation about the "failed promises of AI." I
can't quote precisely, but it says something to the effect that whenever
successful applications are derived from AI they are immediately named
something else. So, of course, AI has remained -- by definition -- a complete
failure.
However, I am one of the founders of an organization -- The Center for
Semantic Excellence (www.semanticexcellence.org) --
that is committed to a broad approach to what some people think of as KM. Our
founding members include experts in organizational management, motivation,
strategy, "sense-making," and eLearning. We champion a more "holistic"
(yecch!) but well-grounded approach that includes technology. KM technology is
desirable ... and inevitable.
Besides, we aren't even close to having a mature suite of semantic
technologies.
Phil
On Dec 11, 2007 7:54 AM, Villano, Paul Ch CIV USA
TRADOC <
paul.villano@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Just
one caveat with the two paragraphs I quote below. Working with the
Army and the automation community I hear a concern with those involved in
knowledge management of the tendency to "throw technology" at a problem and
thereby confusing knowledge management itself with the technology that is
used to assess, maintain and manipulate it among people. I just wanted
to make clear that knowledge management should not be confused with the
tools used for it.
You said:
That's unfortunate. Assertions and
the evaluations of those assertions can be represented explicitly. They can
be known -- expressed as structured objects. They can be supported directly
by technology, management practices, and education of workers in semantic
principles. Decisions can be traced back to the conditions/assertions that
influence those decisions.
Objects of this type and relationships
among those objects can also be visualized easily. I am aware that software
applications for specifying, visualizing, and evaluating assertions do
exist. But those I have seen (like the Compendium Institute's Compendium
hypermedia tool) seem fundamentally disconnected from goals of precise
representation of the meaning in natural language. They lack methods of
formally representing assertions as objects that can be addressed with
multiple tools, or they simply don't scale well. Others simply don't make
the distinction between assertion and evaluation of assertions at all.
Paul Villano
Knowledge Management Officer
US Army
Chaplain Center and School (USACHCS)
"Pro Deo et Patria!...For God and
Country!"
[snip]
_________________________________________________________________
Message
Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/okmds-convene/
Subscribe: mailto:okmds-convene-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/okmds-convene/
Shared
Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OKMDS/
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OKMDS
To Post:
mailto:okmds-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_________________________________________________________________
Message
Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/okmds-convene/
Subscribe:
mailto:okmds-convene-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/okmds-convene/
Shared
Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OKMDS/
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OKMDS
To Post:
mailto:okmds-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx