KM Models - mix & match

Just how many KM models are out there?

Here is a partial listing from KmWiki

Part of the issue is scale KM models cover basic knowledge and information related activities such as gathering, structuring, storing and publishing to highly abstract life cycle conceptualizations such as the KMCI KLC

Rather liked the review of KM model taxonomies presented by Kakabadse, etal in their article " Reviewing the knowledge management literature: towards a taxonomy", Journal of Knowledge Management 7 (4) 2003 pp75-91.

Network Models
The focus is on connections, acquisition, sharing, transfers via horizontal exchanges. Important knowledge resides in a network of actors connected by 'boundary spanners'. Awareness of insights and information outside formal teams and groups is a key driver. Knowledge work is seen as building social relationships, social capital and attending to reciprocity. Competencies include empathy, facilitation networking via telephony and Internet tools.

Cognitive Models
Knowledge is seen as a corporate asset that requires careful capture, representation, storage, measurement, preservation and dissemination. Value comes from repetitive application of captured best practices and avoiding pitfalls documented as lessons learned. Key focus is on reuse, replication, standardization and 'weeding' of outdated routines. Finding the correct balance between exploration and exploitation has eluded many organizations that follow this model

Community models
Recognizes the close relationship between self-organization, continuous learning and informal exchanges for knowledge stewardship. Knowledge is founded in the thinking that circulates in a community, where language is shared, trust allows exploration of heuristics, patterns may be crafted and subtle symptoms and repetitive working solutions are spread via story telling.

Philosophical models
Based on interactive Socratic dialog within a strategic context this model values deep questioning of assumptions and continual inquiry into behavior of competitors, markets and internal processes. This approach values personalization over codification and uses very little technology. The key cultural drivers are maintaining open communication, encouraging deep reflection & learning, creative abrasion and belief justification.

Quantum model
This the authors maintain "builds on quantum physics, emergent quantum technology and consequential economy" I do not understand how this fits their schema yet!

Clearly it is possible to follow a mix of these models. Organizations that have made good KM progress in my experience subscribe to parts of the Network, Philosophical and Community models with a little cognitive modeling thrown into the mix. The key drivers seem to be connections & relationships, trust, empathy, community, deep dialog and technology to capture persistent conversations.

Comments

[Betty Bo]

This is really a crazy world. How can anybody understand all this crazy stuff all around? It's so meaningless, but in one way it's fantastic!

[Susan]

Hello Denham,

I am studying KM as part of an international masters program.I have applied the Quantum KM model to a case study as the most relavent model. My defense is based on the idea that your model encompasses the elements of the many different models into the four areas of community, cognitive, network and philosophical.
Please let me know if my interpetation is incorrect...
If I am correct,can you direct me to other sources, that reference this model, as I need 2 sources to support my defense.
Thank you,
Susan

[Shawny Diane]

Does anybody know why? I can’t believe that this is really true! But often the things are not as they seem to be in this coloured world…

[Lara Josefine]

Really good work. I found a lot of profound information which can help me to go on. Thanks for all this input.

[John Moore]

Thanks for this Denham...

I easily see which Quadrant I feel most at home in (Philosophical), so it won't surprise you that I recoil in horror at most diagrams which categorise KM. But this one makes a lot of sense.

I can see that for particular purposes, different approaches are going to work best. Reminds me of Dave Snowden's quadrant (see http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/423/kurtz.pdf) which separates complex from complicated etc.