Talk:Knowledge management/Archive 2

Featured Article attempt
Right chaps. We obviously have experts getting involved here, so it should be easy to get this article to featured article status. Just so you all know, a featured article--Snowded 23:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC) exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
 * 1) It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
 * 2) *(a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
 * 3) *(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
 * 4) *(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
 * 5) *(d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias; see neutral point of view.
 * 6) *(e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reversions and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
 * 7) It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects. Thus, it includes:
 * 8) *(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
 * 9) *(b) a system of hierarchical headings; and
 * 10) *(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
 * 11) It has images where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * 12) It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I've struck through those that we've done to FA status, and I'll try and whip up a box for it some time. in the meantime, we can start on something easy. We need images, diagrams - anything that explains visually, to a layman (imagine a first year undergraduate of a computing or business degree), exactly what Knowledge management is. Hawker Typhoon 23:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If we are thinking of diagrams then Nonaka's SECI model is about the only one that everyone would agree should be there (even those of us who think it is flawed, but it is a key part of the history of KM and still the most influential. Is there a public domain version out there? --Snowded 04:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that an encyclopedia article should not be addressed only to professionals in the field. At the moment there is too much that is no doubt clear to experts but needs to be said in everyday English for laymen: "a body of work derivative of Information theory .. and linked to the conversion of internalized tacit knowledge into explicit codified knowledge (SECI) allowing successful knowledge sharing ...". I can guess what that means, but I shouldn't have to. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Web 2.0 changes to Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
I deleted these changes by KASH100 for the following reasons: 1 - the distinction between tacit and knowledge is basic to KM. I disagree with it, but it is more or less universal. Removing it therefore damages the article's completness. 2 - Web 2.0 is a way of creating/editing information/knowledge is does not represent a new type of knowledge, but it does represent a new means of creation. New Knowledge v Old knowledge makes no sense in this context I think there may be a place to create a section on web 2.0 and KM. --Snowded 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to KASH100  If you insert new and controversial material and other editors disagree it is normal to discuss the changes here rather than reinstate the material.  The normal default is that the status quo persists while it is discussed here.

Snowded, yes, thanks, I'm certainly new to Wikipedia but have been in the field of KM for many years. The concept of new knowledge (i.e., innovation) is widely discussed and implemented in the corporate world lately and I believe it's perfectly relevant to discuss it in this section. People have started questioning the value of KM as we know it - why is it really important to share knowledge that already exists since it might prevent people from getting creative/innovative ideas. On the other hand, creating new knowledge using social computing techniques is the name of the game these days. You might want to read an article in HBR about IBM's Jam - it's way too different from "creating/editing information/knowledge" but a game changing way to generate new ideas (i.e., knowledge) to make the world a better place. You can also search on ibm.com for Jam or collaboration and you'll find a few interesting hits. Here is one of'em: http://www-03.ibm.com/industries/automotive/doc/content/event/podcasts/2473369108.html?g_type=pspot.


 * Innovation or new knowledge is obviously a part of the field, but it is not uniquely linked to social computing.  It was a part of KM before the advent of social computing.  Now I am a fan of SC and an active blogger with a reasonably high standing, but I also know its limits.  It allows more and better exchange that traditional knowledge environments but it is still limited.   I know all about IBM's JAM (I as employed by them and close to those who ran them).  The HBR article does not describe my experience, it smacks of corporate PR.  Either way you now know where the discussion page is and I assume you are happy with the way your original material was changed and moved around.--Snowded 04:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced Material
Despite having one of the longest 'Further reading' sections I have ever seen, I have tagged the article as 'Unreferenced', as none of the contributors to this article have cited their references. Despite being well written, the lack of references is a major weakness. --Gavin Collins 07:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the 1995 date. I think there is an article by Prusak that dates a conference on KM to 1993, and others may well argue that KM starts even before then...

See: L. Prusak, “Where Did Knowledge Management Come From?” IBM Systems Journal 40, no. 4 (2001): 1002-1007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousGeorgeGuy (talk • contribs) 03:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive discussion on Reading Lists
--Snowded (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC) I think we may have a problem, in that the list of books and articles is growing out of control. Lots of articles are being added (I guess by the authors) and the value of the list is diminished.

[Suggestion: Greetings, Given that the page is about knowledge management, perhaps it may be helpful to consider addition of as many as possible peer-reviewed published articles. This seems necessary to provide a "fair and balanced" perspective of the area and how it is evolving. A relatively comprehensive bibliography of the field may not diminish its value as long as some "fair and balanced" criteria is used such as inclusion of peer-reviewed refereed publications. As some may say it is not the knowledge about knowledge management but the "unknowledge" that may prove more critical for most stakeholders and readers of Wikipedia (see, for instance, Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, by Taleb, N.N.)]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra (talk • contribs) 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we should have a discussion about which books and articles are critical?

The GWU KM CoP had a list of its top books for reference. I checked many of them were on the list. Those that were not I added. It is a bit overwhelming but the subject is so broad. We tend to split the list into Practice and Theory sections. It may be of use to further refine the list by the categories of Leadership, Organization, Technology, and Learning. Linda J. Vandergriff 03:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its useful to have added more material here, but I think it would be objectionable to categorise the books according to your own framework. At the moment we need some work done on a SMALL list of the defining books and sources for major schools of thought.  However for the moment I think people are shying away from that as it would be difficult to reach any consensus.  Most of the better books I know could not be split between practice and theory by the way and in a Web 2.0 world we should really be moving away from categories.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 06:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would strongly advise not adding "as many as possible peer-reviewed published articles." WP is not a bibliography, and this would be considered excessive weight. It is my own feeling you have altogether too many already. For the way to do it, see List of important publications in biology, where it lists only a few, with defined criteria. there are similar lists for other subjects, and I think the list here is already very much too large to be defensible. I suggest you instead find a way to list only the truly landmark articles, DGG (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright that sounds reasonable ONLY IF there is "defined criteria" to which each and every item in the list is subjected to determine if it is "truly landmark" or not. There are specific criteria such as "impact" of the articles in terms of its third-party references in various databases (such as Web of Science, Google Scholar). However, whatever such criteria that define "fair and reasonable" must be explicitly clarified and adhered to be everyone. May I ask what are the "fair and reasonable" "defined criteria" currently governing the listing of any articles therein. In absence of any such criteria, how does one treat the represenation of knowledge about this important topic on this page as "valid" and "reliable." Do note that ad hoc, arbitrary, unwarranted, unexplained listing or unlisting and unexplained "censorship" - which is evident currently on this page - in absence of any other such evident criteria amounts to a ridicule of the very essence of the topic of this page: "knowledge management." Moreover, it also violates the terms of use of Wikipedia that is intended to not stiffle validated (unbiased, third-party reviewed, verified, validated, unbiased, refereed) articles. Let us hear the explicit "defined criteria" that currently guide what are "truly landmark" articles on this page. Can you justify based upon any such criteria how any of the articles or readings listed therein satisfies the "defined criteria" of "truly landmark" articles or authors. If not, why misinform the world at large about a topic of grave importance; perhaps shutting down the page will be a big favor instead to those who may really care about "reliable" and "valid" knowledge on this topic.Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra 02:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with DGG, we need the list reduced rather than expanded, but we also need it to be representative of am emergent field.  There has been a lot of unwarranted listing on this page which is normally picked up quickly by various editors.  I don't see any evidence of censorship by the way, the page is open to everyone and this discussion page has been used to resolve issues.   I don;t think many of the current articles would justify inclusion.  Again lets discuss criteria.  (i) I think is popular awareness and use, that would include Working Knowledge and Learning to Fly which would not make it on academic grounds  (ii) defining articles and books within schools once we have agreed those.  Comments?  --Snowded 15:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The criteria at the Biology page mentioned are
 * Topic creator – A publication that created a new topic
 * Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly
 * Introduction – A publication that is a good introduction or survey of a topic
 * Influence – A publication which has significantly influenced the world
 * Latest and greatest – The current most advanced result in a topic
 * but they have been applied very narrowly, and each individual item added has been discussed separately on the talk page. There are a total of 36 books and articles listed, covering the entire field of biology from Pliny and Aristotle to date--a much larger field in both time and subject scope than this one. Except for I think Darwin and Linneaus, no author at all has more than one item. An equal number books have been suggested and removed--including quite a lot of favorite textbooks.  See also List of important publications in chemistry, using the same criteria, with 26 books and articles only. DGG (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Schools of Thought
I deleted one addition today as it seemed not be a school as such but a description of what KM is about. This is the text "* Knowledge management for radically changing and discontinuous business environments associated with Yogesh Malhotra and social enterprise BRINT Institute." Tracing back the IP address and making a leap, I assume that this an addition by Malhorta or someone in BRINT.

Now all the other schools would claim that their approach deals with this. If you look at the schools they represent different conceptual or history based options (Information science, complexity etc). The list is far from complete and needs more adding to it. But the above phrase ( I make no comment on the work of Malhorta per se) sounds like a sales pitch not a school. Listing BRINT as an institute may make sense, but then it is a separate heading and a lot of others could be included such as Henley etc.--Snowded 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This area is becoming problematic and needs discussion. I would say that a for a school of thought to exist, it must have a distinct theory base, and a body practice. The latest posting is by one of the authors of a book published this year which does not even appear on a google search. We have similar problems in publications where everyone is posting their own papers and there is no structure or organisations. It seems to be that schools that are established, which satisfy those criteria are: - Intellectual Capital Management - Information Management developments - Systems Thinking - Network Theory - Narrative - Complexity Science Now there may be more, but can we discuss here before just posting more --Snowded 08:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dave Snowden, having reviewed your above comment it appears that BRINT Institute's contributions satisfy both criteria: "for a school of thought to exist, it must have a distinct theory base, and a body practice". For sake of "fair and balanced" coverage, let us subject every 'school of thought' represented here to the same test. We are willing to subject our contributions to the world to that test and would "challenge" (playing Hegelian Dialectic or Devil's Advocate, in terms of philosophy of knowledge) every other listing on this page to be subjected to the same test. Here is a small sample of our impact on advancing theory and practice based upon actual verifiable documents found in public archives on the Web:

- Sample of organizations that utilize our "pro bono" knowledge services on this topic and a sample of global third-party reviews of our contributions to knowledge management practice: http://www.brint.org/

- Sample of actual citations about the contributions of our "school of thought" in advancing research and practice on this topic: http://www.yogeshmalhotra.com/casestudies.html

- Sample of articles that have developed a distinct "body of knowledge", i.e., theory, based upoon "peer-reviewed, refereed, third party validated" work of more than last 14 years, as well as several scientific citation analyses studies, surveys, and unbiased third-party reviews: http://www.kmbook.com/ and also http://myweb.whitman.syr.edu/yogesh/ Specific number of citations on Google Scholar for many of these are available as well as citations in the Web of Science database. Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra 03:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[Current status: From prior comments by Snowded, it seems until we can determine and agree upon specific "defined criteria" for determining "landmark articles" and "landmark authors", we may agree to observe a "tacit" working standard. From what I understood from his comments, he seems to suggest that any new listing should not exceed the number of items listed in each section by any other existing author. Based upon this premise, I have made some changes to adhere to this "tacit" working standard suggested by Snowden in the interim, i.e., treat myself or Dave not fairer than other author already listed in any specific action. Specifically, I see the top limit of two items per primary author for further readings and the top limit of three items per primary author for articles. I have tried to adhere to this working standard and would expect that further unexplained and unwarranted strong-armed censorship will not happen. Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)]

The GWU KM CoP has proposed a KM framework with 4 pillars. This school of thought takes an integrated approach and should be mentioned. We made an attempt to be concise and expect to add pages on our 4 pillars, the IKI, and the EOF in the near future. As we are an active CoP we also could take on other sections of the page if the community would like that. Linda J. Vandergriff 03:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It won't be the first four pillars model to come along and I will be interested to see if it is "holistic" a claim often made but not yet fulfiled. In any event this is not a "school" per se it is an integrative mechanism.  I created a new section for Academic Institutions (so that they can all have an entry) and also created a page for the GWU reference with your original content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 05:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I should add that more participants in editing this page would be very welcome. However we need to remember that the purpose here is not to take a position, or impose a model.  Additional pages are the place for anything which is specific to an approach.--Snowded 06:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

November 23rd 2007: I attempted to link the "knowledge sharing" expression (mentionned only twice in the KM article) to a newly created article of the same name. However, our committed user Snowded has argued that it is not used in the same sense as in the Knowledge Sharing article where the link was under the Techno-centric section and removed the link. Do you think that the internal link to the Knowledge Sharing article would fit better with its mention under the School of Thoughts section? Cyr S. (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Chained Reference to IKI
Moving the IKI material to its own page was fine, except someone else then deleted it. I have inquired why they did this but have not got any answer. I believe a short description such as I provided for IKI should be either on the KM page or its own stub. How do I get this fixed?Linda J. Vandergriff (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * your problem is that you did not go in and expand the entry so someone picked it up and proposed deletion. Everyone who expressed an opinion said delete so it was deleted.  I also said delete by the way, but on the grounds that no one from IKI had taken up the page or was defending it.   You can recreate the page and put it on your watch list.  I would also make a note in the talk page that it was deleted without your having a chance to defend it.

Knowledge Management and Diplomacy
I deleted a long entry and replaced it with an example earlier on. Most of the entry repeated basic statements about data, information, knowedge etc which are covered elsewhere in the article. If this is considered a significant issue it should be set up as a new article (and it will need a lot of editing to survive there). --Snowded 02:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of the title
Per MOS, the name should be Knowledge management. If there are no objections, it will be moved back. DGG (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We have debated this before and the common use in journals etc. is Knowledge Management. So I am afraid I disagree --Snowded 10:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also object. Common usage is with both caps.  (And who or what is MOS?).  Jackvinson 03:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The MOS is the Wikipedia Manual of Style -- Jacobko 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * MOS allows Knowledge Management and does not require Knowledge management - it is a proper name --Snowded 05:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it a proper name? How does it differ in that sense from, say, information management? Nurg (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I object. Needs to remain as is:  capitalized. Betaeleven 03:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove promotional reference
Following jauerback I have reversed the reference to Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader By Stephen E. Little & Tim Ray. This is a reader with multiple authors so it cannot be referenced as an example of a specific approach (although one of its chapters might be). There is no particular reason to use this book as an illustration. Whatever its merits it is not one of the defining texts of KM, nor does it represent a single school or approach. If we need an example (which I doubt) then lets debate it here --Snowded 18:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This book is a textbook of and required reading in the Open University (UK) KM courses It is useful in showing the breadth of the KM discipline. I have found it useful even though I studied at a different university (yes its my POV etc) johnmark†  19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarkh (talk • contribs) err why did I get that bot saying I didn't sign when I did? I shoudl have read the article - and it's positioning was not quite right - was it intended to be a reference for people who were criticising Nonaka's ideas if so we could reformat to a footnote. johnmark† 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarkh (talk • contribs)


 * Please use colons to indicate a response. The book may well be required reading on the OU KM courses and I know several of the authors and have respect for them.  That is not the issue.  The insert states that this book is an exmple of an approach which rejects Nonaka's SECI model.  Given that the book contains articles by Nonaka, and also by others sympathetic to the tacic-explicit distinction it cannot be such an example.  Your answer does relate to the point. You may want to add the book to the list of publications at the end of the article.  However even as a footnote it is not relevant at the point of insertion. --Snowded 23:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * maybe I was trying to be too tactful - as you say the book can't be used to support the comment. Including it in the already very long list of publications may just be compounding another problem. Have you any ideas about how publications should be chosen for the list - indeed is the list needed at all - maybe replace it with a list of experts and leave the publication list to their own wp articles - although as you have noted elsewhere this also may encourage self promotion (the list of publications/references at the end of the BRINT article is even more..daunting) Thanks for the tip about colons - I hadn't realised that was how the indents happened johnmark†  22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarkh (talk • contribs)
 * I had to be told about colons the first time (and about signature). The references problem is a big one here.  Everyone wades in and adds their material, often in the main text.  What we may need is a discussion about the critical list of articles relating to each of the major schools so that readers can get a sense of what they should read.  There could be a list of "any articles anyone wants to bring people's attention too.   I aniticipate controversy though and it probable needs one of us to have a stab at getting the schools write and creating a straw man of the articles.

--Snowded 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Journal References
When I went to put the journals that we regularly use, I noticed this comment

First Exchanges with Malhotra
Yesterday I took two actions. One was to remove an anonymous addition to "schools of thought" referencing work by Malhotra. The second was to reduce the number of citations of articles by Malhotra to one in order to get some form of balance. Whatever the quality of Malhotra's work it does not deserve that degree of prominence over Nonaka, Prusak etc etc. Personally I have been restrictive in respect of my own articles and I think it would make sense to set a limit of two, possibly three as a rule?

The issue on schools of thought is more substantial. There are several bodies which offer an approach to KM, some academic, some not. These have various degrees of validity and there is a space on the site for them. Schools in this sense indicates a theoretical base or positioning - so complexity, intellectual capital etc count. This is a weak section and needs expansion and citation. We can discuss that here. However to include something with the phrase "the research of Malhotra has helped companies to understand why knowledge management systems fail" is clearly self-promotional.


 * Dave, "self-promotional" literally means promotion by self, i.e., based upon self-opinion, which as a matter of fact the above observation is not!! *In fact*, the above statement is quoted verbatim from the recorded observation of 'independent reviewers' from AACSB. In fact, the above statement is a direct excerpt from the AACSB International Impact of Research Task Force Report [exact quote and source report accessible at: http://myweb.whitman.syr.edu/yogesh/AACSBResearchImpact.htm]. The same holds for the independent scientific rankings of impact of world's most influential knowledge management scholars and practitioners. Specific examples include American Society for Information Science and Technology Monograph monograph bibliometric analysis with results listed in the table included therein (http://myweb.whitman.syr.edu/yogesh/ASIST.pdf). Reference: Ponzi, Leonard J. (IBM), Knowledge Management: Birth of a Discipline. In Michael E.D. Koenig & T. Kanti Srikantaiah (Eds.), Knowledge Management Lessons Learned: What Works and What Doesn't, (American Society for Information Science and Technology Monograph Series), 9-26, 2004. The same "independent and scientific objectivity" is applicable for another scientific analysis of the Knowledge Management discipline for the period 1990-2002 published by information scientists at the University of Minnesota. (http://myweb.whitman.syr.edu/yogesh/Top58.htm). Note that none of the above is a self-proclaimed assertion, i.e., self-opinion or subjective / biased assertion. They are all independent, objective, and scientific pieces of evidence that suggest the worldwide impact of specific thought leaders.


 * Virtually every author named in the article could make similar claims. However you seem to be the only one with a need to assert such statements, for whatever reason.  There is a bible story here about someone who placed themselves at the head of the table which it might profit you to read.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Malhotra has over reacted to this (and I would be interested to know if he was aware of the anonymous additions). What matters here is balance and objectivity not self-promotion or using the space as a source of all one's published work.


 * Dave, that is exactly my point, and I have specifically and explicitly explained how describing specific and explicit results of independent, objective, and scientific analysis is the exact opposite of self-promotion. Let me extrapolate this point further. Apparently, based upon your subjective bias and opinion you chose to delete the above reference about the impact of the research stream noted by AACSB and affirmed / supported by *thousands* of independent sources including world's major governments and corporations; world's most reputed business, technology, and management publications; world's most respected scholarly and scientific institutions. What should one make of it except for the perpetrator having closed one's eyes and mind to the "self-evident truth" in subjective, self-opinionated denial. Please note, for me the key issue is about recognizing "self-evident truth" that is affirmed by overwhelming objective, scientific, and self-evident "facts." Do note that my earlier expressions of alarm about apprehensions about distortion of truth, manipulation of facts, and censorship of "self-evident truth" on this topic of grave importance to the world. Again these apprehensions resulted directly from the blatant, specific, and repeated actions that have no objective justification. (To say, the least they were misinformed.) Now, contrast the above weight of evidence provided with the inclusion of "David Snowden (see Cynefin)" as representative schools of thought. What is the "overwhelming independent, scientific, and objective" evidence of global nature that makes "David Snowden" or "Cynefin" as representatives of Schools of Thought and exclude many of the most influential contributors and their 'schools of thought'. Please note that my perspective represents the views and concerns of the silent and significant majority of other influential contributors (many are listed in the above noted other similar scientific studies) who cherish and follow their mission of contributing to the 'public good.'... In sum, if world-recognized impact of other 'social enterprises' that have selflessly contributed to the advancement of the field is not relevant, that raises questions about inclusion of Cynefin (by none other than its head)as questionable. Isn't listing of 'Cynefin' by 'David Snowden' (who is its head) as a key school of thought blatantly self-promotional? How else would one justify it? Similarly, how does one justify blatant and unsupported assertion about self-listing by any John Doe (be it 'Dave Snowden' or some other) of one's own name without independent, objective, scientific evidence (or facts) as a proponent of a school of thought? Isn't it self-promotion? How else should one interpret prior comments about self-promotion by these very proponents but as blatant mockery of truth? I have in the interim decided not to delete either of the two ('Cynefin', 'David Snowden' under schools of thought) from the article, as I have expressed earlier about withholding personal judgment. Again, first and foremost, the issue is about upholding 'self-evident truth' ('real knowledge') when impacted by subjective and perhaps biased misinformation. Any specific entity or 'school of thought' in my thinking is secondary to this authenticity, integrity, and validity of the 'process' that needs to be in place. The integrity, validity, and reliability of the 'process' is critical as it relates to the broader concerns about the world and society and large without relegating them to subjective whims or fancies of any specific individual or school of thought. Incidentally, the integrity, validity, and reliability of the product (knowledge about knowledge management as narrated on the Wikipedia page) becomes suspect and questionable in absence of integrity, validity, and reliability of such a process for creating reliable and valid knowledge.]

Can we please discuss here and agree some principles for this that we can reference thereafter. Pending that I suggest we do not get into a reversal battle. If Malhotra wants to add two more articles I promise not to reverse that.--Snowded 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * [Current status: From prior comments by Snowded, it seems until we can determine and agree upon specific "defined criteria" for determining "landmark articles" and "landmark authors", we may agree to observe a "tacit" working standard. From what I understood from his comments, he seems to suggest that any new listing should not exceed the number of items listed in each section by any other existing author. Based upon this premise, I have made some changes to adhere to this "tacit" working standard suggested by Snowden in the interim, i.e., treat myself or Dave not fairer than other author already listed in any specific action. Specifically, I see the top limit of two items per primary author for further readings and the top limit of three items per primary author for articles. I have tried to adhere to this working standard and would expect that further unexplained and unwarranted strong-armed censorship will not happen.Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra 03:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)]


 * Dave Snowden, having reviewed your above comment it appears that BRINT Institute's contributions satisfy both criteria: "for a school of thought to exist, it must have a distinct theory base, and a body practice". For sake of "fair and balanced" coverage, let us subject every 'school of thought' represented here to the same test. We are willing to subject our contributions to the world to that test and would "challenge" (playing Hegelian Dialectic or Devil's Advocate, in terms of philosophy of knowledge) every other listing on this page to be subjected to the same test. Here is a small sample of our impact on advancing theory and practice based upon actual verifiable documents found in public archives on the Web:


 * - Sample of organizations that utilize our "pro bono" knowledge services on this topic and a sample of global third-party reviews of our contributions to knowledge management practice: http://www.brint.org/


 * - Sample of actual citations about the contributions of our "school of thought" in advancing research and practice on this topic: http://www.yogeshmalhotra.com/casestudies.html


 * - Sample of articles that have developed a distinct "body of knowledge", i.e., theory, based upoon "peer-reviewed, refereed, third party validated" work of more than last 14 years, as well as several scientific citation analyses studies, surveys, and unbiased third-party reviews: http://www.kmbook.com/  and also http://myweb.whitman.syr.edu/yogesh/


 * Specific number of citations on Google Scholar for many of these are available as well as citations in the Web of Science database.


 * We are willing to handle the "truth"? Are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra (talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly I suggest you take comments like your sign off out of the discussion and try to be more objective.  The issue of a school of thought is different from a coherent body of knowledge or an approach (for which you define some criteria above).   I would suggest the following criteria: (i) there must be a distinct epistemological or ontological theory underpinning the approach (ii) the approach must be linked to several authors and/or practitioners and/or institutions rather than a single institute and (iii) there must be published material to support the theory.


 * Dave, please help me understand what you mean by "comments like your _sign off_"? Not sure what you mean by this. Specific, independent, scientific evidence has been listed above to make the points made so far, hence it qualifies as 'objective.' In response to point [i] above: Yes, there is if you happened to study the dozens of papers linking strategy-psychology-technology that have been published and are referenced by practitioners and scholars across most countries of the world. How do you account for a multi-theoretical perspective which is applicable in this case? In response to point; [ii] above: It is as is evident from the specific listing of bibliographic references that are listed in each of the respective articles; In response to point; [iii] above: There is not only published and widely referenced material to support the [multi-]theory in this case, but independent, scientific, objective reviews by many of the world's most prestigious institutions and scholars have recognized the global impact of this body of knowledge.


 * Under this criteria Intellectual Capital survives, as would the various variants on Information Management and Nonaka (into which I would place Brint by the way) which is the dominant group. A body of work based of Popper is also strong as is the complexity school (although I would incorporate narrative into that as I don't think its distinct.--Snowded 15:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just made some changes to the section consistent with my comments above. I do not think anything can be a school if it relates to a single institution or individual.   I have extended the complexity entry to include other authors, and consolidated narrative into that school.  I have also included a new section on collaboration and linked Information to SECI.  There is more work to do here and my entries need some cross referencing and expansion.  I repeat a key point here.  There are groups such as Brint, Henley and others that consolidate work, create methods etc etc.  This is valuable work, but it does not constitute a school of thought.
 * About your first statement above, please see above specific references about how the specific 'school of thought' / 'body of knowledge' has influenced world's most major governments, corporations, institutions across most countries of the world. About your assertion 'This is valuable work, but it does not constitute a school of thought' note: However, the substantive contributions of the specific contributors and their related 'schools of thought' that have made some of the greatest 'impact' on advancing the discipline and its practice deserve due recognition. Again such 'impact' must be based upon independent, objective, and scientific evidence from multiple respected scientific, scholarly, and pragmatic sources across the world, as is applicable in the above case.
 * Many, many people, ideas and thoughts have had major influence on people or institutions from within a particular perspective or way or thinking. You are confusing influence/impact with distinctive types of thinking.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

More exchanges with Brint
Malhotra - please please please learn how to use the Wikipedia. If you have a comment please place it as a new paragraph and use colons to indent. Inserting text in other people's comments, removing your own but leaving people's responses. These are all bad practice. I know I am not perfect either and make mistakes but there are some basics.
 * Dave Snowden, thank you for your help in recognizing the good practices for documenting the responses on the discussion page. My primary concern as apparent from earlier responses is about the good practices (i.e., process) for creating reliable and valid knowledge on this topic. That concern seems to be of much greater import and hope that the stakeholders of this forum will be equally emphatic about it.

I will make a few simple points

I edited the section on schools to make sure that all had more than one person or institution associated with them. These schools have a clear single base point, they do not attempt a synthesis of the field. Your claim for yourself/brint is as synthesis not a school.


 * Dave Snowden, again what you are stating is your opinion, not a scientific fact or a fact that has a basis in objective, independent, scientific, impartial analysis. This is an important issue which lies at the core not only of self-promotion and self-opinionated judgment but denial of "self-evident truth" (any person's opinion does not make any assertion an objective, independent, scientific, impartial "fact".)


 * I find it difficult to get to grips with your logic. The schools as currently listed all have a distinct origin or source, and have multiple thinkers associated with them.
 * Very simply (ideally not in 55 convoluted paragraphs) please outline the distinctive theoretical base to Brint


 * Dave Snowden, the very first statement about this distinct theoretical base contributed by Brint was deleted by you as one can verify from the archived versions of this article. Here is what you had deleted when posted as a distinct school of thought based upon its contributions to the discipline spanning 1994-2007: "Knowledge management refers to the critical issues of organizational adaptation, survival and competence against discontinuous environmental change. Essentially it embodies organizational processes that seek synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity of information technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings." You had deleted this statement without offering any rationale or considering how this theoretical, philosophical, pragmatic and epistemological perspective is distinct from other "schools of thought." An article published in the Journal of Knowledge Management (http://www.kmnetwork.com/RealTime.pdf) specifically focused on a retrospective analysis of the above focus on knowledge management. The bibliography also listed our prior research focusing on specific models and frameworks underlying this meta-model that were published over the last ten years or so.

You do not have to be a school to be seen as making a contribution, or to have citations.
 * However, in absence of independently verifiable, scientific, and objective "evidence of impact", any such self-claimed "schools" are more akin to 'hot air' than any substantive contributions to advancement of knowledge that matters for most human concerns.
 * Yes well, I will choose not to give you a basic lesson on the history of science. In fact all of the schools listed have publications in respectable journals and a body of evidence that they are in use. I don't think this is necessary, but as it happens it is there so you should have no problems. [Comment by Snowden]

The editors who restored prior versions of this discussion happened to leave out the above paragraph.Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To include a promotional statement, even if you can show authorship is not done. I could for example use Tom Stewart's quote to the effect that I am the best person he has met in the world on Tacit Knowledge. I have not done so, will not do so and will delete any attempt by someone else to.
 * As noted above, any person's opinion does not make any assertion an objective, independent, scientific, impartial "fact". If you can establish based upon impartial, objective, scientific evidence that thousands of scientists, scholars, and practitioners across have used the specific "body of knowledge" such as Cynefin for advancing worldwide research and practices, that has merit. If you cannot do so, it is just your opinion, which is not different from anyone else's opinion. Again, the notion of biased and opinionated self promotion (i.e., invalid and unreliable knowledge) is about promoting personal beliefs or opinions without validating or establishing them based upon impartial, objective, independent, scientific impartial "facts" or "self-evident truths".


 * I am clearly stating that it is WRONG for anyone to place endorsement statements as to their capability to standing in this article. I am amazed to be honest that any academic of whatever standing would wish to do so. You are not even addressing the point in the above paragraph

The reference to Cynefin is to a published model not to an institution. My organistion is Cognitive Edge and we will not promote through the Wikipedia
 * Above comments still apply, there are a number of published models (and meta-models) that I and others have authored that are advancing worldwide research, practices, policies, and strategies across most countries of the world - as per actual evidence from thousands of actual data points (observations) shared in prior documents. Many of these models are being extended, built upon, and advanced by worldwide scholars and practitioners as evident from impartial, objective, scientific evidence (documents)... Thank you for differentiating the name of your model from that of your organization. However, the fact remains that Cynefin is intrinsically tied to your organization and your identity... unless it has contributed, built upon, advanced, and is being used by worldwide scholars or practitioners to advance the field. (All these apply in case of work done by the BRINT Institute.)


 * As I recall I was not the one to list every publication in this article. BRINT is an organisation not a model.  If there is a model, with status and standing which takes the article forward I suggest you post it.  Just STOP TRYING TO PROMOTE YOUR ORGANISATION.


 * It is incomprehensible why attempts by others at providing definitive, independent, objective, and scientific evidence are painted by you as “promotion.” In contrast, it is also notable that you have chosen not to address the issue of your own self-promotion of Snowden and Cynefin in the article main text. Where is objective, independent, and scientific evidence about contributions claimed by Dave Snowden or Cynefin. If Snowden and Cynefin are mentioned (by you) in the article section on schools of thought as key contributors, why are other key contributors censored who can demonstrate independent and objective evidence about impact on the discipline that Snowden has been unable / unwilling to provide so far. PLEASE DON'T SET DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR OTHERS THAN THOSE YOU YOURSELF CHOSE TO FOLLOW. As one of the silent majority of those recognized as most significant contributors (by independent, scientific, and, objective studies of the discipline) and identifying with millions of others who have the same potential, I request you to advance beyond “d****l” (the word that you used for one of the edit response headers – patiently trying to remain civil despite receiving unwarranted and uncivil responses from Snowded) PLEASE offer definitive, objective, independent, substantive, and conclusive evidence about contributions of Snowden and Cynefin or delete their reference from the section on Schools of Thought!! HOLD YOURSELF TO THE SAME STANDARD THAT YOU EXPECT FROM OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra (talk • contribs) 05:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE respond using wiki conventions at at less length. --Snowded (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Finis!

Not unlike other original thinkers and practitioners, I have key philosophical differences with Dave Snowden on issues related to creation of reliable and valid knowledge. However, I do understand and recognize his passion for advancing the practice of knowledge management. He insisted in the recent past to retain many of our passionate discussions from the past on the discussions page. He also asked to remove references to independent, objective, and scientific evidence about BRINT's contributions to knowledge management from this page. In the spirit of the greater good, I have decided to unlist the specific references, information, and comments shared in the spirit of Hegelian inquiry. In addition, I have also deleted comments that in my view amount to distortion of facts and misinformation about matters related to BRINT Institute and myself that I am more cognizant about than Snowded or anyone else can possibly be. (Specifically, to maintain objectivity of this discussion page, I have eliminated all references and characterizations that were found amounting to misinformation, slander, and libel. Anyone who wants to know both sides of the discussion is welcome to review the archived versions. Anyone who is interested in establishing the veracity of the specific claims (opinions) and their refutation is welcome to take the matters offline. )The intent of many of those comments was to provoke critical thought about validity and reliability of knowledge and the overarching processes. Hopefully, those comments have served the intended purpose of provoking such thoughtfulness and careful consideration. In any scenario, given professional commitments that often do not allow time or luxury of such passionate discussions, I have decided to revert back to the role of once-in-a-while reader of this page. [Comment by Malhotra] '''The editors who restored prior versions of this discussion happened to leave out this key paragraph. They also chose to undo the deletions of information mentioned therein that was used for Hegelian Inquiry. It is fair and reasonable to expect that editors present both sides of the debate without intentional filtering, manipulation, or distortion of information.'''Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While I am not sure that Hegel would recognize the exchanges it would appear that this "conversation" has come to a close. In parallel with this I amended the schools of thought to add in one on networks, and to place Malhotra's name on a list of other authors associated with one of those schools. I did this in response to a statement by Malhotra in response to my challenge to him to provide a clear statement of why his view was distinct. He said: "Knowledge management refers to the critical issues of organizational adaptation, survival and competence against discontinuous environmental change. Essentially it embodies organizational processes that seek synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity of information technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings." You had deleted this statement without offering any rationale or considering how this theoretical, philosophical, pragmatic and epistemological perspective is distinct from other "schools of thought." An article published in the Journal of Knowledge Management (http://www.kmnetwork.com/RealTime.pdf) specifically focused on a retrospective analysis of the above focus on knowledge management. The bibliography also listed our prior research focusing on specific models and frameworks underlying this meta-model that were published over the last ten years or so. [Comment by Snowden]

The editors who restored prior versions of this discussion happened to leave out the above paragraph.Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded: OK let us look at that statement. The first sentence is a generic statement of application or need which could also apply to many other subjects not just KM. Within KM I don't think anyone would disagree with it other than to challenge its completeness. The second sentence could come from Prusak, or Nonaka, it is not distinct. Your article in the JKM (one of the many journals in this field where I am on the editorial board) is a competent summary of the field with a heavy emphasis on technology. This further places your work within that group. I have therefore amended the descriptor to include your name along with others. I think this is weariness on my part, but persistence deserves some reward. I am sorry to have used the word drivel, but the sheer volumes of material that you write here, includes massive repetition and you rarely address the arguments. [Comment by Snowden]

The editors who restored prior versions of this discussion happened to leave out the above paragraph.Dr.Yogesh.Malhotra (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"See also" List
I have no clue why Snowded has removed Knowledge Sharing from the see also list when this is considered one of the major chanllenges in knowledge management. It is inherently different from Knowledge transfer where this one implies exchanges of skills across organizations or units rather than between persons (the point of knowledge sharing). You can't deny the significant amount of literature on the topic of knowledge sharing. Therefore, I am placing the link once again hoping this has justified the intention. Cyr S. (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Very happy to have it on the "see list" although the article needs work. Not happy to have it as an illustration of the Techno-centric school (see my comments when I made the change)  --Snowded (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoring
'''I have restored the fullest previous version,and am now inserting a comment made after the unjustified renewals. I resored based on my total agreement with the principles in the following comment by Jauerback: '''

Using a talk page
This latest discussion is a mess for multiple reasons, but I'll address a few: 1. First and foremost, do NOT delete or otherwise edit someone else's legitimate talk page comments. This includes grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. 2. Please sign ALL of your comments with four  ~ . This is a complete mess right now, and it's very hard to see who's saying what. 3. Indent your comments with the appropriate amount of colons ( : ). This helps with the format, makes it altogether easier to read, and helps determine who wrote what if you forget #2. 4. Do not respond to someone's comment(s) by breaking apart their previous paragraphs to respond them separately. Please try to respond in one full and complete comment. Once again, this makes it harder to read and follow -- and it violates rule #1. 5. If you wish to "take back" something you previously said, please do NOT delete it. Instead, use the   Strike-through text  . This way, the record remains, it's easier to read, and the discussion flows better. Jauerback (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

going on from here

 * 1) Will those who wish to delete previous comments of their own now strike them through, according to the suggestion above.
 * 2) Nobody may delete any comment by someone else--such actions are considered disruption and can lead to a block.
 * 3) Future discussions should be confined to questions of improving the article, not discussing the subject of Knowledge Management or the merits of the various approaches to the subject. DGG (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully endorse your points 1&2 and reversed the deletions once, but it then became too hard. That said it is difficult to see how an article on KM can be improved without some discussion of the subject.  In this case the discussion related to schools of thought and what did or did not constitute something unique.  The discussion was overlong, repetitive and did not progress (and it would have been nice if other people had joined in).  I fully endorse your comments on merits however, the purpose of a wikipedia article is not to endorse or promote a particular view of a field, but to report honestly on the depth and diversity of that field. --Snowded (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

complexity theory or science is irrelevant to knowledge management
complexity theory or science pertains to some aspects of information theory, data mining etc. It has nothing to do with KM. So I've removed the reference to snowden. The wikipedia KM article is a homage to references and publications, yet know one seems to have a definition for KM. Time to go back to the drawing board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.44 (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to read up a bit on complexity science before you make a statement like that. It is a key part of decision theory and understanding of organisational change. The authors cited (which I admit includes myself) have published articles and books relating to the application of complexity theory to KM.  Boisot even one a major prize for this book Knowledge Assets. There is no agreed definition of KM and that has been a controversial issue for over a decade, the article reflects this.   I agree with you over the excessive number of references.  You would be more credible if you did not hide behind an IP address.   --Snowded 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to respond to Snowded's comment "You would be more credible if you did not hide behind an IP address." Anyone is free to contribute to Wikipedia either anonymously or not. Please see Please do not bite the newcomers. You can't judge one's input based on the simple fact that the person who contributed has an account or not. I am a great believer in fairness. thank you. Cyr S. (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As you say, anyone is free to contribute to the wikipedia, and equally anyone is free to make a comment on the use of an IP address. The anonymous IP address is nearly always associated with vandalism and is also used to disguise self-promotion. I am not saying that all anonymous contributions fall into these categories and I can see a case for anonymous contributions where there might be consequences, but this is hardly the case in respect of this article.  It has nothing to do with being fair or not - that argument could be used for and against anonymity.  --Snowded (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick supplement to the above - if you check the record of the IP address in question you will see that on the 5th December s/he blanked three pages, including the Knowledge Management without explanation. I rest my case  --Snowded (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your clarifications. At least that user sould supplement her/his actions with reasonning. Cyr S. (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

micro/macro
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.44 (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this relevant to discussing the Knowledge Management article? Cyr S. (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Enron reference in introduction
I don't agree with the reference to KM being somehow linked to scandals such as Enron. I am not a KM expert by any means, but I do not see the connection. "Knowledge manipulation" is a subjective term that doesn't really have much to do with Knowledge Management. 24.19.39.18 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with you, that whole paragraph seems out of place and could be deleted. What do others think?  --Snowded (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)