« Collaborative filters & playlists | Main | Blogs & bicycles »

August 27, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341f9c0c53ef00e5505d69e28833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference KM disappointments:

Comments

marcial losada

There are at least two critical variables in KM that require special attention for it to work properly: connectivity and the positivity/negativity ratio. If connectivity is high and the P/N ratio is at least 3:1 (see "Losada line" in Wikipedia), then KM has a better chance to achieve its goals. This is explained at length in "The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams," American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 46, No. 6, pp.740-765.

Mark Berthelemy

There's a lot of work being done on Concept Maps in the US - these are a slight variation on Topic Maps. Take a look at the IHMC Concept Map software toolkit: http://cmap.ihmc.us/

Even if you don't follow the "rules" of concept mapping - it's a very useful tool.

Carol H Tucker

Topic Maps is another one of those ideas that sound great, and cannot be translated into a small business setting -- too esoteric, too removed from the daily grind.

Alex

> Topic Maps are an extention of the XML paradigm

Rubbish, all and through. Topic Maps has nothing to do with with XML, apart from the XTM *format* which is a separate standard. Topic Maps is a data model that is cleverly designed to fit the 80/20 figure for KM solutions.

As to why it hasn't caught fire, I'm not sure, but I think a combination of an idea too good to be true, lack of good and simple tools, and no power-backers should cover it.

I have noticed though that it is on the rise in acedemic circles, which may or may not be a good thing.

David Locke

I looked at Topic Maps and said no thanks. When they started talking about logical proofs across ontologies, I said no.

Worse, Topic Maps are an extention of the XML paradigm, which isn't fit for text. Extrinsic organizers like Topic Maps need to be replace by intrinsic ones.

I was hopefull of it in the beginning. I think that people still don't realize that this technology has a long way to go before it becomes a mainstream application. It is too geeky to be useful even to geeks. And, it isn't a geek focused application in the first place, so the fitness between what it does and the complexities of it, keep it out of the market.

The comments to this entry are closed.