User talk:Snowded/actKM

'''This is a working page for material, to be edited by anyone, but in particular by members of ActKM prior to posting to Knowledge management '''

Please use comments section for questions and commentary (see end) and sign all comments. Main body below is for evolving text, no signatures. Thanks!

Information Processing enhancements
Many KM consultants and vendors offer technology solutions which promise new and improved ways of information processing, management, and retrieval, which will consequently improve management of an organisation's knowledge. Its appeal is that it builds on an established powerbase and infrastructure in organisations. Its weakness is that it does not address the tacit aspects of knowledge processing.

Social learning
Characterised by community-based solutions that treat KM as a social learning challenge. Its theoretical basis is derived from practice theory. Its appeal is that it addresses the tacit side of knowledge. Its weakness is that it does not address transactional aspects of knowledge processing.

Network facilitation
Sees KM as a network facilitation challenge and is characterized by expertise location that enables people with knowledge to be found by people who need the knowledge. Its theoretical basis is derived from person to person shared experience, such as native tribal rituals. Its appeal is that it permits situation specific knowledge transfers. Its weakness is that it is impossible to categorize everything any person knows, so profiles or documentation will always be incomplete.

Sensemaking lens
Results in KM being applied as a sensemaking problem. It is characterised by context rich, narrative-based solutions, and is linked to complex adaptive systems by some authors. Its appeal is that it addresses intractable problems, such as ... Its weakness is that it involves paradigm shifts for many organisational cultures that can be hard for management to comprehend or accept.

Complexity lens
Sees KM as a matter of varying the constraints within a system to allow for the emergence of practices to facilitate emergence. Can be linked with autopoesis and unstructured use of fragmented narrative. Its appeal is that it allows the emergence of low cost solutions tightly linked to context. Its weakness is that it requires a paradigm shift in the way leadership of an organisation exercises control and challenges concepts of best practice.

Cultural lens
Results in KM being applied as cultural challenge. It is characterised by change management techniques and incentive systems. It draws on theory from anthropology and organisational learning. Its appeal is that it addresses a key underpinning of knowledge processes - that of trust. Its weakness lies in ongoing debate over whether culture in organisations can actually be managed / manipulated.

Economics lens
Results in KM being applied to improve economic performance (often thought of as doing something better, faster or cheaper). It is characterised by techniques and solutions that focus on learning before doing, learning while doing and learning after doing. Techniques such such as peer assists (learning before doing), After Action Review (learning while doing) and retrospects (learning after doing) are simple processes that can be used by teams to help accomplish this.

Its theoretical basis is derived from the work by Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow in 1962 on learning while doing. Its appeal for practictioners is...... Its weaknesses are....

Neuroscience lens
Frames KM as a ?? challenge (problem/opportunity) and is characterised by ?? techniques and solutions. Its theoretical basis is derived from....?? Its appeal for practictioners is...... Its weaknesses are....

Intellectual Capital lens
Results in KM positioning knowledge as an intangible asset with monetary value to the organization, and is characterized primarily by valuation techniques. Its theoretical basis is derived from financial models and algorithms. Its appeal is that it assigns tangible value to intangible assets such as knowledge, expertise and customer relationships. Its weakness is that most generally accepted accounting procedures do not permit inclusion of intangible values, so management tends to discount it.

Comments (please keep them brief)
Dave, the "Information lens" is okay, if you are talking about data/information/content. It was originally a "Technology lens" though, and I think we need both. One is the pipes, the other is what's flowing through the pipes. I'm a little suprised to see so many changes from what we had been reviewing in the Act-KM list, and some categories were proposed (like Joe's 3 concepts) that didn't make it to the list so they could be fleshed out or discarded. -- Kaye

How do we propose to top and tail this information into the Knowledge Management space on Wikipedia? Will this mearely be another section on the KM page or should it be a seperate page with reference from the KM page? Also think it needs to be clear that these are historical perspectives of KM (Hence the references as evidence of this). (asked by Cory)


 * I think we should let the document develop a bit first. There is a very poor section in the article on schools of KM which this could replace.  If it gets substantial then it becomes an article in its own right and can be referenced from many other sources. -- Snowded  TALK  14:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

On the "Sensemaking lens", it would be helpful to include the "theoretical basis" for this concept, as we are doing in the others. Also, some examples would be useful. -- Kaye

On the "Complexity lens", what does this mean? I'm not sure what word(s) to change. "...varying the constraints within a system to allow for the emergence of practices to facilitate emergence." --Kaye

Why are we now discussing "KM Interventions"? What are "KM interventions"? Is this outside the scope of our exercise? --Kaye (noticing that no one replies here...)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.88.97 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont quite understand why the above has been split into two parts "Types of KM Interventions" and "KM Analysis Techniques". I'm in favour of just one list of "Approaches to KM" that can be simply added to the existing KM page. Will continue this discussion on the ACT KM list. Tim K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.91.1 (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, complexity (to take one example) is way of thinking about problems not a technique. -- Snowded  TALK  04:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dave-I believe this post would rightfully belong to your development under the section Neuroscience: I haven't seen much mentioned lately about the success of any particular KM initiative without first addressing the individual / team learning styles preferences. Just as each of us has individually unique DNA, we have individual ways that we learn. These are sometimes referred to as styles, preferences, or in some cases disabilities. This is fresh in my mind because I just completed the Index of Learning Styles from NC State University, Richard Felder and Barbara Soloman "Learning Styles and Strategies" as part of my ongoing educational desires. BTW--I am an Active, Intuitive, Visual, and Global learner. I took exception to my extreme score in the "Sequential / Global" category; as in certain situations, such as putting together IKEA stuff, i have the patience and sequential capability necessary to adapt and be successful. Even though we disagree, at least with the term audit, that this "level-setting" needs to be established as part of investigation and assessment for organizational KM initiatives. Steveatappliedkm (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Participating editors

 * -- Snowded TALK  05:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kvivian (talk)
 * acrawford
 * BoundsSM (talk)