« Beliefs around learning | Main | Knowledge sharing - a re-think »

December 03, 2006


David Locke

So KM boils down to this, "I don't know what I am, so I'll make sure you don't know what you are." Or, "I can't do what I promise, so hey, look at this...."

Try defining KM as if no infrastructure is necessary at all, and then maybe, we'll get there. The only problem is that we wouldn't have anything to sell, and no reason to go there. So sell everything and don't ask any real questions.

David Locke

By social, you mean centralized. I've come across a paper on address-free architecture that emerges from diffusion gradients and flooding.

In diffusion, one node expresses a want to those nodes known to it. Those nodes either provide the wanted, or forward the want to those nodes known to them. This goes on until the want can be serviced, then that service is sent back via the path that it travelled. The layers constitute a gradient.

Flooding is similar. Yell out into a room "Sort yourself out with A's by the door. And, in less than n squared time, the room is sorted. No centrality involved.

This stuff is both faster, cheaper than centrality. True distribution is yet to be achieved.

There is a long way to go. And, Web 2.0 is utterly a distraction. But, KM must go on distracting itself, as it is a distraction.

Garsett Larosse

I like Swicky and Frappr.
The challenge, it seems to me, is to integrate social search in the organisation's social assets.
For example, we've added Swicky-like functionality to a competitor research extranet. Frappr is a good tool to integrate to any geographically distributed organisation.

Bryan Alexander

What about using Google search strings (like this one) in other web 2.0 apps, like blogs or wikis? The social affordances of the latter then add social power to the former. Perhaps this is second-order social, in your terms, Denham.

The comments to this entry are closed.