Comments on: Is technology necessary for Knowledge Management?

By: Does KM work for you? | Project Management Tips

Does KM work for you? | Project Management Tips — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:20:01 +0000

[...] post on whether technology is necessary for Knowledge Management sparked of a rather interesting debate and if the multiple lines of thought are anything to go by [...]

By: A Knowledge Management Fable | Project Management Tips

A Knowledge Management Fable | Project Management Tips — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:10:14 +0000

[...] the lengthy discussion on one of my previous posts is anything to go by there is still a lot of disagreement around the [...]

By: Alan O'Neill

Alan O'Neill — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:11:12 +0000

Stephaan, go to my profile on Linkedin you should be able to get me from my name. The presentations are towards the bottom of the page. Download them and look at the supporting notes. I can understand what you are saying. In my experience about 70% of any piece of Knowledge is transferred, due to context, interpretation, actually experiencing it, etc., and the person receiving it will personalise, interpret differently, etc. But if by capturing and passing on 70% of any given piece of knowledge then an individual is more capable, avoids mistakes, greater fulfilled, motivated, etc, etc, then it is better than no knowledge at all. If you have any problems with the slides drop me an e-mail at alan@knowledgepad.co.uk.

By: Stephaan Van Damme

Stephaan Van Damme — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:48:19 +0000

Alan, I would very much like to watch the slides, but the link guides my to my own linkedin profile.
As for the discussion, I fully agree with Kyoji. Finding out what is particular knowledge of an individual can help to identify knowledge, but as soon as you share it, it is transformed into something else, depending on the person on the reception side.
We all know the game where we whisper a sentence in someone’s ear, who has to whisper it in another ear and so on. The truth from the beginning is not the same as at the end. This can be easily dealt with by using a piece of paper or by a recording.
Still the question remains: is the input, the knowledge passed, truely the knowledge that is meant to pass. Testing the receivers and correcting them, is a good approach I believe, since testing can single out cultural misunderstandings and level them, no? Question remaining: how often is one to test the reception of the information passed?
I hope I am still contributing?

By: Alan O'Neill

Alan O'Neill — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:43:31 +0000

An addition to the above regarding the presentation. There are notes associated with it and you will need to download and save the file to read the notes.

By: Alan O'Neill

Alan O'Neill — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:33:38 +0000

I agree with Kyoji’s comments about the ‘what is knowledge’, and I think this is why Knowledge Management has not been more widely adopted, or accepted. To know how to manage Knowledge, you need to know what the Knowledge is. In defining knowledge, I advise clients that a good starting point is to identify if there are any key areas of the business that reside soley in the ‘mind’ of an individual, i.e., expertise, and then what would happen to the business if that individual left with their ‘expertise/knowledge’, or worse died). What impact would this have on the business? I have placed a two slide power-point feature with notes on Linked-in, it is what I use with clients to demonstrate what is Knowledge please take a look – it is labelled the Knowledge Hierarchy; http://www.linkedin.com/myprofile?trk=hb_side_pro.

By: Kyoji Takakusaki

Kyoji Takakusaki — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:54:00 +0000

We are not agreed on the definition of KM. KM has many faces. One picks up one of the aspects, other picks another, ….., and so on. Throughout the discussion, KM is not defined and in a way it is impossible to define it.
For instance, in the context of project management, most of you see KM as a process of communication. Culture is by definition a pattern of communication. Technology makes tools, but to use them, we have to modify our way to communicate, including share.
Here, we have to focus on “knowledge” and its scope. In project management context, often knowledge is a “pattern” or “process (procedure)”, namely, how we can do it better. You will not agree on this definition. Knowledge can be discussed in a broader scope.
Most of you discussed “Management” of knowledge. Colletion, storage, sharing, and so on. For this paticular aspect, there are many hi-tech tools developed in the last decade. Above all, however, sharing has the most important implication. We have to recognize knowledge as knowledge, to begin with. This recognition process is very context sensitive. In many cases, knowledge embedded in culture is difficult to recognize as such. Sharing is an exposure to different contexts/culture. So sharing sometimes generates a new idea, while it primarily aims at increasing organizational learning capacity.

By: Udayan

Udayan — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:08:22 +0000

Nice post and a good discussion! (at least to me).

The question here – as I think – should not be whether or not technology is a must for KM, but rather, are we really clear on our definitions of the term ‘technology’? My point is, technology has been there for ages, and it will be for ages too (I hope). The post-mail still does work well, even we do have electronic-mail (e-mail) now. But since we are finding that communications are more easier for us with email, we are now used to it.

So is the case with KM and technology. KM existed in different forms even without the existence of modern electronic technologies (email, cms, web etc). However, as most of the communications (business, personal or organizational) now occur electronically than in the traditional forms, the need for the electronic technology for KM becomes inevitable, as KM not only deals with collection of information/knowledge but also with sharing to those who are in need.

By: Alan O'Neill

Alan O'Neill — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:12:57 +0000

A P.S. to my last comment, I do not find these discussions useless, just the opposite. Any means of making Knowledge Management easier to understand, stimulate greater acceptance, make it easier to implement has got to be the way forward.

By: Alan O'Neill

Alan O'Neill — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:06:26 +0000

Firstly to answer Martijn, yes they would have been technology. And Stephaan’s point is also correct and I agree totally.
My point was meant to reflect that Knowledge Management can be undertaken without a high tech solution. As I stated, and I also tell potential clients, a high tech solution will make storage, retrieval, searching, deployment, etc., so much easier and quicker. However, I have been working with a Specialist Sports-car company doing Knowledge Capture/Learning from Experience exercises and it is captured on paper and they have benefited from that! The next stage will probably be the high tech route. I have also been working with a small construction company and they are practising Knowledge Management (without knowing it!) using paper and informal methods.
My message is don’t get hung up on the delivery mechanism, focus on the output – achieving Knowledge Management.