Knowledge-at-work

KM in wikipedia

How would you write the definitive entry for knowledge management in Wikipedia?

We have seen many attempts to define, circumscribe, explain and codify KM within Wikipedia. The current version still leaves much room for improvement. So where would you start and what would you alter?

The article IMO tends to be written from 'software' perspective rather than an attempt to cover the topic, show the difficulties with KM definitions and bound the domain.

The initial section does not cover the KM domain adequately IMO. Key concepts that are missing are:

• A short definition - What KM is all about
• A summary (with links) to KM framework documents
• The origin and history - how and why did KM arise? What makes KM a worthwhile and pertinent distinction? What are the related domains?

I would like to see the section on key KM concepts expanded to cover:

• Knowledge types & nature - why this has been a difficult topic within KM
• Knowledge acquisition - missed anything on ethnography, narratives, metaphor, patterns, knowledge mapping
• Knowledge sharing & transfer - collaboration, innovation, awareness, learning, agility
• Intellectual capital - role in competitive advantage and innovation
• Corporate memory - approaches to 'knowing what we know' and retaining experience

KM drivers - this is great as is

KM enablers can be improved by:

• Linking to Web2.0 efforts and technologies
• References to advanced practices - concept mapping, pattern languages, visual thinking, ontologies, folksonomies, open editing, VoIP and more.
• Adding a piece on KM affordances - facile annotation, personal profiles & portfolios, voicing via blogs, social network analysis

I would rewrite the piece on 2nd generation KM to include KM maturity / capability models, explain recent thoughts on KM and complexity and the role of emergence, knowledge landscapes and core attractors.

The lack of any reference to PKM, and the omission of key authors such as George von Krogh, Dorothy Leonard, Karl Wiig and Etienne Wenger needs urgent correction.

So what is your take?

Questionnaires & knowledge mapping

Recent comments on the Act-km list are an interesting reflection on the value and utility of questionnaires in knowledge mapping. My view remains unchanged - questionnaires need to be used with extreme caution and are most times not the best way to proceed. WHY?

David Snowden points the way:
Context is difficult to explicate and there are grave problems with bias, extrapolation, unintended "Hawthorne effects", sampling representation and question structure. It is not possible to overcome these through simply conducting a pilot, including open-ended replies or allowing free-form answers. Any understanding of knowledge work requires collecting anecdotes, surfacing implicit knowledge via dialog, observing complex interactions between team members and boundary objects and unraveling the nature of distributed meaning, memory and learned responses.

Studies of knowledge work require immersion, careful ethnographic procedures, engagement, and a deep knowledge of the environment, actors, culture and assumptions that encapsulate the situation. Studies of sense-making, knowledge sharing, learning, decision making and tacit transfers, take time, need expert observation, require trust and do not suffer short-cuts lightly.

Some of the best work in this area is the naval bridge navigation work of Edwin Hutchins. His book "Cognition in the wild" is required reading before embarking on a knowledge mapping venture IMO. Knowledge sharing is far more complex than "who you get help from", colleagues you trust, documents, forums, meetings and networks you have access to, overt ties to reward structures or 'opportunities' for information exchange. We need to be aware of identity, self-perception, subtle cultural messages, ability, time pressures, desire to engage in creative abrasion, tolerance for ambiguity and altruistic drives.

YES questions are the key - NO questionnaires just do not cut it!

Creative abrasion or appreciative inquiry?

If you seek to increase knowledge which road should you travel ? creative abrasion vs. appreciative inquiry or do they both lead to the same destination?

Creative abrasion
A clash of ideas helps to focus attention, forces us to take a hard look at validation, raises the energy level helping to break ingrained mental models. Strong critique is not for the faint-hearted, knowledge is so closely linked to our identity, it hurts to be wrong!

In its quietest form, writes Beth Agnew, creative abrasion is the catalyst for producing a pearl. The oyster is so bothered by the unpleasant abrasive effect of the sand inside its smooth shell, that it works on the sand to smooth its rough edges and coat it with essence of pearl. The result? A beautiful, valuable gem.

In its most energetic form, creative abrasion brings two teams, people, or ideas together like flint on steel. It creates sparks that ignite a wildfire of ideas or innovation. More

Appreciate inquiry
Finds and builds on the positive, seeking strength and re-framing discourse to praise rather than critique.

Appreciative Inquiry is based on the premise that from the moment of inquiry, the individual, team and organization experience a change. By using a strength-based  approach, the social structure, whether it be a team or organization,  moves in a positive direction accepting change guided by their initial input. More

For me creative abrasion is closely linked to deep dialog. Deep dialog is:

1) A spirit of genuine quest, when we add a goal, have an agenda, select members or impose time-frames, we surrender the freedom to explore.

2) Most of us use our energy to build and sustain our personal identity (a false image of ourselves!), we operate from unexamined, fixed and non-negotiable positions. The power of dialog brings these assumptions, positions and tacit beliefs into the open for examination.

3) The road to meaning is a rhetorical environment that encourages critique, rather than exploring and holding multiple views we most times rush to resolve them.

4) Discussion that holds value, is of necessity, messy, full of self-interest (advocacy) and always under tension. Insights do not emerge from logic, ordered sequence, rules or formal agreements, they are born at the edge of chaos.

5) Real-time discussion develops by addition and accretion rather than synthesis and categorization, reflection, interpretation and emergent meaning; it takes second place to maxims, truisms and repetition. Immediacy often reigns over reflection.

6) Deep dialog is not characterized by a specific method, technique, style or format; but is an attitude,an orientation that emphasizes meeting the needs of the participants.

7) Deep dialog is a rhetorical competency, it is the ability to argue, discuss, debate, confer for advice and exploration, it goes beyond gathering information and articulation of a position to enter the world of sharing. It involves a separation of ideas and identity and understanding of position as something other than personal opinion.

There is currently a discussion underway at the Virtual Chautauqua led by Carol Metzker please join us.

Building blocks of knowledge

When you put knowledge formation or creation under an ethnographic microscope what do you see?

At the heart of knowledge creation lies conversation, shared language, agreement on key distinctions, naming of prime concepts, sharing of experiences or beliefs, the explication and testing of patterns.

We need engagement, deep dialog and creative abrasion to suspend individual mental models, grab attention and overcome inertia, we need purpose, perceived value, common goals and difficult questions to drive inquiry, surface and explore connections, deepen our understanding and make sense of things.

Distinctions are knowledge atoms, the way we separate an object from its background and from similar objects. Once we recognize a meaningful difference and apply a name, we start to seek & make connections, explicate tacit feelings and beliefs, test utility, classify and assimilate, make predictions and examine assumptions.

Questions are the key to turning tacit know-how into social knowledge. Questions help knowledge emergence, test beliefs, guard against personal bias and incorrect mental models. The empowering environment or culture for knowledge formation is one where no one is afraid to ask dumb questions as there are really no dumb questions - just think back on the many times you have benefited when someone else had the courage to ask first!

Metaphor and analogy help with explanation, contrasting, connecting and meaning making. A metaphor establishes relationships, encourages finding obscure similarities, exploring emergent differences and improves communication. Metaphors are how we code experiences.

A shepherd that helps with pattern drafting, introduces the pattern to the community, assists with revisions and final scripting, is a key player in knowledge crafting.

When you next practice ethnography, looking to discover how knowledge flows, where it emerges, why it is hard to capture, who has it - think: distinction, questions, metaphor and pattern - those building blocks will help you make sense of a difficult task.