Just my 2c : technology as an answer to KM is useless if the people
don't use it. It's not a case of "if you build, it they will come"
either. In our experience, trying to use an information/technology
solution for COPs, for instance, fails because people don't want to
change their culture, no matter our efforts. They have changed culture,
because of direction to do so (if you will allow that that could be
true) to do non-technology processes supporting KM. In this instance, a
"desk guide" was created by all for each function, which sits at their
desk, in paper, so that if the person is gone for some reason,
knowledge/information about what they do, who with, when, and how is
available. That's a win for the non-techno side (and believe me, I love
technology and am frequently referred to as a geek). (01)
Vr, Debby (02)
Debby Clark
KM Officer, Logistics Competency
NAVAIR Weapons Division, China Lake CA
760-939-1050 / cell 760-977-1598 (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: okmds-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:okmds-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kevin
Hannon
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:26
To: Ontology in Kowledge Management & Decision Support
Subject: Re: [okmds-convene] Re-centering the discussion (04)
I am coming down in defense of technology, but for different reasons
than some. (05)
It has been my experience that most of the technological solutions work
very well. And project failures are often more perception than reality. (06)
Most often, the failures (or perceived failures) are due to issues
around metadata consistency, taxonomy implementation and other design
and business related issues separate from the technology itself. (07)
Having said that, the most common cause for failures in design is due to
an over-reliance on the technology. Too often, projects are completed as
a technology exercise, which is a setup for failure. While we would not
have such a thing as KM if it weren't for technology, that technology is
simply a vehicle. How well we plan, design and implement the project are
the critical success factors today and will continue to be tomorrow. (08)
Kevin Hannon
Principal and Founder
InfoCurators, LLC
201-913-8108
khannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.infocurators.com (09)
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Murray <mailto:pcmurray2000@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Ontology in Kowledge Management & Decision Support
<mailto:okmds-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [okmds-convene] Re-centering the discussion (010)
I know I'm going to hate myself for this, but I can't help but
respond. (011)
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. (012)
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. (013)
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. (014)
In fact, Mika and Akkermans pointed to one of the funniest
remarks ever about KM and technology: (015)
"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) (016)
[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] (017)
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. (018)
However, I am one of the founders of an organization -- The
Center for Semantic Excellence (www.semanticexcellence.org
<http://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. (019)
Besides, we aren't even close to having a mature suite of
semantic technologies. (020)
Phil (021)
On Dec 11, 2007 7:54 AM, Villano, Paul Ch CIV USA TRADOC
<paul.villano@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (022)
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. (023)
You said: (024)
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. (025)
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. (026)
Paul Villano
Knowledge Management Officer
US Army Chaplain Center and School (USACHCS)
"Pro Deo et Patria!...For God and Country!" (027)
[snip] (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (029)
________________________________ (030)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (031)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (032)
|