« The essence of KM? | Main | An ecology behind the firewall »

June 04, 2006


Patrick Lambe

Hi Denham, thanks for this, your periodic reviews of the KM discussion space are always interesting. I recently posted a question on ACT-KM about the influence of blogging on forums, but got minimal response - even from bloggers! I echo Marnix's question, any idea why this shift?


Knowledge management (as in the managerial identification & control of information which was somehow supposed to have been greater than mere information) is dead. I, for one, am very glad it is gone.

Historically, I view KM as the ill-concieved response to its ill-concived predecessor; BPR (another top-down managerial control notion that proved to mechanical to be "real"). Even worse, when Mike Hammer/Index was finally seen as a fraud, KM was the "next wave" for the entire industry of BPR "huckster/consultants" and "business expert/pundants" to flock too and over hype/sell their "intellectual capital" snake oil. KM was a full blown business practice movement that was conceived, developed, and delivered without the most basic understanding of its basis; knowledge. Knowledge is our "design of meaning" from the conceptual relationships we form and are derived from the social network where we reside. Everything else is information. There is no way that a simple identification and control metaphor would have any effect on knowledge as it truly exists. There are many emerging outcomes in both social settings and even technology that will leverage this better/deeper understanding and the future looks bright for knowledge practices such as communities of practice, action research, and organizational learning as well as social interaction/web2.0 technologies.

I am quite pleased that the KM notion has finally run its course into oblivion, despite the continued best efforts of the Aussies and David Gurteen. KM is dead and rightfully so.

Ben Tremblay

Discourse ... indeed.

I just read a peculiar paper called "Topophobia" ... it beckoned to me; the term "topoi" has a special meaning since it came into usage in our advanced PoliSci course on "regime". Anyhow the paper brings up some interesting material concerning Vico contra Descartes. I had never thought of "topic" in contrast to "reason" before. But the more I think about it ... you know, the way we value narrative ... what makes discourse qualitatively distinct from, say, debate. *With a nod to Habermas.*

Anyhow, I recommend the paper to you. (I linked to the HTML version.)

Oh-wooops, almost forgot my point: my "participatory deliberation" project is based on the notion that we will either have far more and far better discourse or we will have far less ... the times are not enlightened.

Marnix Catteeuw

Any reason why ??
Is it a technology hype which is followed (one must blog and RSS) or are we shifting from dialogue to monologues ?

Mike Riversdale

Cracking start - hope the list grows and grows

The comments to this entry are closed.