Sorry Dave but apprently no slides - pod is there though

Uhm, Dave, did you ever listen to your own podcasts? Probably not, being shy and all. Point is that their sound quality is lousy. I mean really, REALLY lousy. Can you do something about that?

good update to the km forum, really love the pts your made . hope to see your new book :)

Mireille - not sure which ones you are talking about. The early ones on the iPod were not good, but for the last year I have been using different equipment with a clip on mike. I listened to those and they were OK. Is your comment on all, or just the early ones?

I really enjoyed the KM Asia podcast and didn't notice any problem with the sound quality.

I found the comments about the changing context for IT departments particularly thought-provoking.

Maybe the cynicism *is* the story, Dave ;)

I think the audio quality on the early podcasts was quite poor, but I have found the quality of the most recent podcast to be good

Thank you very, very much! Are you willing to give more meat on how to interpret the 30% reduction number? Or maybe it's already out there in your blog postings? This is clearly a great angle to get management's attention these days.

I thought you were way to gentle, by the way. And the sound was OK.

:heiki

The "structured" approach was novel and worked excellently Dave. Admit it, you can be good in all four of the Cynefin domain styles! (I also thought your chairing of the panel at the RAHS conference was excellent, that panel was the highlight of the conference).

That doesn't mean your large claims are unobjectionable... there isn't really enough of a nod to how the social computing bits fit with the structured coordination and consistency requirements of large structured enterprises... ie working across Cynefin boundaries in a coherent way. We need to keep the plates spinning in at least three of the Cynefin domains for effective, "real" organisational life in large organisations that operate beyond Dunbar boundaries. I think your message is a critical one, but it comes across as very one-sided.

Thanks Patrick (I think!). Either on the keynote or in the workshop I argued as I have argued elsewhere that the integration point between social computing and the enterprise is database control and enforcement of HTML linkage rather than extraction or attachments. That improves security over extending the firewall to include the collaborative environment. ERP systems remain, and emergent aspects of social computing can be formalised. You might also remember from the course (and the original KM argument) that all four domains are populated with different technologies, although I do need to update that article.

One-sided and novel do go together from time to time by the way, if you want people to think differently then the boundaries have to be pushed, but as you say the boundaries still exist.

I was thinking of some rather specific needs such as
(a) legal discovery ie the requirement to be able to pull together all evidence of what was known or discussed on a matter in a set time
(b) recordkeeping from a memory point of view rather than just administrative point of view - ie the ability to pull together the thinking and conversations around a specific organisational matter and form a context-rich view of it

Both requirements could involve being able to manage instant messaging (accepted as having evidentiary value if retained, sometimes you want automatic and consistent disposal policies!) content from blogs, wiki-drafts, comments, etc.

The ability to do this is not just technical but also involves some consistency around management processes, tagging, use of common categories and ways of referencing matters. This is not an argument for ERP-style standardisation because these needs don't extend to all enterprise knowledge, and it doesn't exclude distributed tools and platforms, but the technical and process coordination issues still need to be addressed. This is what I'd like to see more of an acknowledgement of. "Free love" in social computing can be fun for a while, but then the negative aspects start to kick in...

Legal discovery is a real issue for IT departments, but that is not difficult to handle. For example requiring employees to use the company email address for corporate communication and stripping the pop-server. No need to control the client environment. The same applies other social computing tools. Note also my proposals for rigourous enforcement of no attachments - material to be in secure database accessed by HTML links. Wikis carry their own audit trail etc.
Integration of content is best handled in social computing environments by people linking and connecting than formal structures.
There is a legal issue outside of this in terms of how we handle conversations in pubs compared with chats in virtual forums but that is a bigger issue.
I don't find your "Free Love" label remotely appropriate to anything proposed in this thread, nice debating point but its the wrong metaphor