« Wikipedia - KM | Main | IC and KM »

December 27, 2004

Comments

Matt Moore

Can I widen this to include Oscar Wilde.

Jeff De Cagna

Denham:

I wholeheartedly agree with two of your choices: Etienne and Georg. To my own list, I would add:

+Larry Prusak-if for no other reason than he is the most contrarian of all the KM thinkers and I love him for that.

+Ikujiro Nonaka-love all of the Japanese thinking on knowledge, including his work with Georg von Krogh

+Steve Denning-the storytelling stuff is so important, not to mention his work with The World Bank.

I really like Dorothy Leonard's work on deep smarts so I would definitely include her in my top ten list, along with Dave Snowden and Tom Davenport.

I agree with the comment from Matt that we shouldn't be doing a KM Oscars, but this is kind of fun!

Matt Moore

I can appreciate all this discussion - but part of me is unhappy with this talk of masters and gurus. These people undoubtedly have insight and experience but I get depressed when we raise these people up.

The intelligence is in the network - it's out there in the conversations that people have.

Please let's not end up with a KM version of the Oscars.

Denham

A master and an author

Verna is clearly a strong contender and would certainly make my top ten list. Somehow she seems to stronger as an author - "The knowledge evolution" remains a great and favorite book, but I found "The Future of Knowledge" not quite in the same league.

Drucker and Wiig - well they both have made very significant early contributions - but they seem aloof from current issues, detached and a little abstract when it comes to detailed practices.

I'm ambivalent about the contribtion of "People-Focussed knowledge management", although I found Wiig's early triliogy to be ground-breaking. Keep wondering if he has quite kept pace with recent KM developments?

Thanks for your feedback

Gerrit

Denham this time I miss Verna Allee on your list. What happened?

chris macrae

Verna Allee is an obvious first person to add from the perspective of whether the quality system of an organisation's architectural relationships between people in a networking age is sustaining or destroying value. Measurable by the open quality of the maps its managers share with knowledge workers.

What catapulted KM to hottest new clueful subject of organisational systems around 2000 were the promises made to Brookings and the EU by leading gurus that they would crack the valuation of intangibles and intellectual and other policy capitals wherever these required different measures from 90 day grab as much money from the world as possible. You would have to judge for yourself how far people like Sveiby and Edvinsson have delivered this claim for KM. In my view, both have but the networks around them are not particularly open sourced (as much the fault of blinding forces to open community such as EU bureaucrats etc as a critcism of any person). Long-term transparency would have needed given the change needed to something as universal as current accounting's transactional standard.

Two other people to consider are Drucker & Wiig. I doubt whether we would be talking about knowledge as the keyword compounding our futures without them.

The comments to this entry are closed.