Knowledge-at-work

The knowledge profile (KP)

A knowledge profile records skills, tools, practices and social networks, it highlights competencies, identifies gaps, helps with learning programs to address deficits, realize opportunities and heighten awareness for the owner and colleagues.

KPs may focus on the individual where they form a key part of your personal knowledge management (PKM) system or aimed at a 'collective' view of a team, group, community or firm. Profiles may be constructed via manual or automatic means, highly structured or very informal, maintained by the end-user or compiled from test batteries and questionnaires by expertise profilers and competency specialists.

A knowledge profile goes beyond determining information needs, guiding information seeking behavior and considers the adoption and use of tools, the condition and functioning of (personal) social networks and learning desires.

Successful KPs focus on the future, they reflect current skills & activities above past positions, awards and educational achievements, providing some indication of where & how the person can best contribute to organizational and team goals.

Knowledge profiles are often a key element in knowledge mapping, knowledge audits, CRM and play an increasing role in advanced search, expertise location, agent based work assignments, customer selling strategies and portal user-interfaces.

Related information is found in yellowpages, expertise directories and academic resumes, but the knowledge profile is distinguished by a list and evaluation of relationships (promotes flow), preferences & proficiencies with communication systems / tools and applicable tacit knowledge strengths.

Mick Cope offers this personal kprofile tool and Paul Towlson a brief summary of the value and role of kprofiles in KM strategy.

What profile attributes work best for you?

Troubles ahead at KmPro?

There seems to be a board level leadership struggle happening at KMPro

Two current board members are seeking proxy votes to terminate the contract with KMMentor founder Douglas Weidner. This is all about access, finances and control of the organization. Eric Tsui resigned as the 6th board member allowing two rebel members to call a special meeting. Claims and counter claims of legitimacy abound.

One wonders what happens to the KMPro chapters and membership while the top dogs do battle?

(Re)visiting PKM

Been thinking about the 'PKM' movement again and wondering why I have this disconnect with personal knowledge activities that seek to enhance thought organization, push public rather than community voicing, and the focus on 'individual' responsibility for knowledge work.

Social learning & networking
When it comes to learning, I'm behind those that recognize the centrality of community and the importance of relationships. Here I follow writings of Etienne Wenger, Jean Lave and the social networking ideas of Rob Cross, Ron Burt and Wayne Baker.

What you know is who you are, and whom you connect with

Personal learning thoughts

Knowledge creation
Happens in community, it is driven through making fine distinctions, participation in creative abrasion and deep dialog, surfacing and verification of patterns and feeding on group awareness.

None of this can happen in isolation - the power comes from social construction, exposure to idea diversity and immersion in group inquiry. Arranging personal thoughts, building rolodexes, networking for social capital, refinement of personal intellectual capital just does not deliver.

So why is there all this hype around k-logs?

More PKM thoughts

OSN2004

An interesting mix from smartmobs to extreme democracy

on-line social networks - 2004

May be playing a small role here myself

KM strategy

When developing a KM strategy it sure helps to have a checklist of key issues.

Key KM decisions:

* Do we support dialog and encourage conversations or capture & organize explicit content?

* Should we focus on knowledge areas or refining process and embeding practices?

* Will we be technology push vs. culture led?

* Is our core driver process or practice?

* Should we be driven by questions (exploration) or by sharing what and who we know?

* Do we believe in personalisation or codification?

* Should we attend to explicit or tacit knowledge?

* Can ignore knowledge assets and intellectual capital and focus on innovation and knowledge creation?

* Is our focus external (customers and competition) vs. internal (communities and processes)

* Do we start with data mining existing information or create new knowledge?

More links

More thoughts

I'm sure you have many more to add - have at it!

Posting patterns

The KMCI is banned again!

Interesting to see the clash of styles, epistemologies and the power of collective pressure. KMCI principals Mark McElroy and Joe Firestone find another virtual space closed to them due to persistent abrasive and long posts.

Mark and Joe decry the injustice and claim the poverty of Epistemological Communitarianism will bring harm to all KM.

Joe's blog

What they fail to acknowledge is the social construction of knowledge, the need to respect & to pay attention to your audience, and to conduct a civil discourse. Here is a description of the pattern:

Pattern Name: (Scope, Purpose)
The pattern's name conveys the essence of the pattern succinctly. A good name is vital, because it will become part of your design vocabulary.

Tit for tat posts

Intent:
A short statement that answers the following questions: What does the design pattern do? What is its rationale and intent? What particular design issue or problem does it address?

Strict adherence to a quote and refutation posting style that irritates readers and leads to social ostracism

Also Known As:
Other well-known names for the pattern, if any.

Quote and refutation - you say, we say

Motivation:
A scenario that illustrates a design problem and how the class and object structures in the pattern solve the problem. The scenario will help you understand the more abstract description of the pattern that follows.

Selective quotes are abstracted from another's (listserv) post and critiqued in detail based on world views espoused by the respondent. Justifications and refutations, subtle publicity and self-endorsement.

Applicability:
What are the situations in which the design pattern can be applied? What are examples of poor designs that the pattern can address? How can you recognize these situations?

Excessive and exclusive use of quote and refute in listserve dialog. Starts with low volume and increases as others attempt to join the dialog, leading to posts of excessive length and ire of the community. Same views are repeated over and over - resulting in banning by the moderator

An applicable situation:
Structure
Participants
The classes and/or objects participating in the design pattern and their responsibilities.

See posts from 2000 to 2004 at KnowledgeBoard, and act-km, AOK K-net, KM Best Practices Yahoo groups involving McElroy and Firestone + various respondents.

Collaborations:
How the participants collaborate to carry out their responsibilities.

Joe and Mark tend to gang up, corroborate and backup one another's views and assertions

Consequences
How does the pattern support its objectives? What are the trade-offs and results of using the pattern? What aspect of system structure does it let you vary independently?

The posting style allows no wiggle room, there is excessive reliance on selective quoting and personal interpretation of anothers text, dialog flow is destroyed, there is no give and take and a dominance in the turn-taking.

Description of consequence
Implementation
What pitfalls, hints, or techniques should you be aware of when implementing the pattern? Are there language-specific issues?

The KMCI is banned from virtual KM spaces where they attempt to espouse their views.

Example:

[Esteban]
> I like your claim " the world of the products of the intelligent mind"
> as a description of world 3... Yes I think that world 3 objects exists when a
> knower holds the shared identical copy in their mind and gives them meaning
> and life...

[Firestone]
Here's where we part company. I hold that the world 3 object exists as long as there is a disposition for a knower to understand the content of the object when and if the knower attempts to grasp it. If no knower is present the disposition is still there and so the world 3 object, once created, is not dependent on the knower. This is the basic idea of "epistemology without a knowing subject", the basic idea behind the notion of Obective Knowledge. This point brings us back to the beginning of this discussion, now more than a year old.

[Source]

Related Patterns:
What design patterns are closely related to this one? What are the important differences? With which other patterns should this one be used?

????