Much as I remain committed to the original ideas behind Knowledge Management(KM) I do wonder as some of the more esoteric activities. For example here we have a collection of definitions of the field (47 and counting). Its a notable effort, and worthy of historical study but is it relevant to current practice? The author, Ray Sims takes his summary with a sense of humour which is good news and contrasts the view of Firestone and Dale (I favour Dale given a choice). I have been having my own exchange with Firestone on ActKM arguing that he had too great a need to put things into neat and tidy categories. Useful in stable situations, dangerous when things are in flux.
Now I have previously expressed my views on where KM is and where it is going. The one thing I am certain of however is that a single agreed definition would indicate that the movement had finally come to an end. When things are dynamic, driving strategic direction then there is controversy and difference. Getting to a single definition would mean that all the interesting people had gone elsewhere. There seems to be less controversy in KM these days, more a desire to be left alone to get on with what is permitted to a sub-set of the IT department with declining resource. Pity really, it used to be fun.
Comments (3)
Hi Dave,
I agree. Though I've wondered if my own evolving definitions of KM as an experience that perhaps reflects a bit of fickle-mindedness and at times the lack of wisdom and deep thought to understand something quickly enough....but well, who is claiming to be God? So, I am not going to bother myself....except perhaps when it comes to a beginner asking me to define KM and not confuse him/her when he/she comes back after a while...
But I am writing here to find out what you think about using the Tipping Point concepts in the implementation of KM. Though I'd have loved to write a full-fledged article on this, for now, I've just scribbled it down in the form of a short post and a mind-map - http://nirmala-km.blogspot.com/2008/03/tipping-point-of-kmthe-3cs.html
As I've mentioned in my post, these concepts aren't new to KM....but I've simply drawn a link between the TP and KM concepts and thereby attempted to get people to focus on what might work well. I am looking for categorical thoughts...in agreement or disagreement and where else to head but here for one such response? ;-) Thanks in advance!
Posted by Nimmy | March 27, 2008 7:43 AM
Posted on March 27, 2008 07:43
I would be weary of the Tipping Point. Gladwell has a tendency to pick up ideas that appeal to him without being critical enough. Emergence and complexity give is a better basis and I would prefer to go back to the science, rather than the journalist.
Context is I think key, communication (in context) is, champions well yes and no. I think there is a danger here of assuming the need for heros when a well designed KM system will reflect natural processes
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 27, 2008 4:40 PM
Posted on March 27, 2008 16:40
Thanks for the prompt response, Dave! I am trying to promote these three concepts to see if it really spreads the KM message effectively. No risk, No gain....I am still pondering over your response to the need for heroes....I do believe they are needed to influence people and perhaps even simply communicate (extension of the point on communication) the KM message if not for anything else....guess I'll know whether it works in the context that I am in, somewhere down the line....
Many thanks...!
Posted by Nimmy | March 28, 2008 4:19 AM
Posted on March 28, 2008 04:19