All Life Is Problem Solving

During a discussion in the act-km group, Neil Olonoff expressed his distaste for the phrase “knowledge processing,” which I use frequently as a summary term for the activities in the second tier of the three-tier model of KM. In reply, I said that I’m not constitutionally wedded to the phrase “knowledge processing,” that the phrase […]

[Read more →]

Every once in awhile someone in Knowledge Management will state the view that organizational knowledge is the set of beliefs on which there is an organizational consensus. This viewpoint fits with constructivist approaches to knowledge because, according to the constructivists, knowledge comprises the belief filters we humans create to interact with the world, and then […]

[Read more →]

Before moving on to discussing in more detail how a National KM Center would coordinate information availability about KM and knowledge processing, I’d like to take a little time to write about a long-standing issue in KM. The issue of definition. In Part One of this series, I defined KM as activity intended to enhance […]

[Read more →]

Last July I wrote two posts on National Governmental Knowledge Management. In the first, I made the case that there was a need to organize and implement formal KM in National Governments to see whether it can produce an ecology of rationality that will work to enhance knowledge processing, knowledge and adaptation throughout such Governments. […]

[Read more →]

February 17, 2009. Alexandria, VA — EIS and KMCI are proud to announce the release of a new White Paper co-authored by Richard A. Vines of Project Lessons – Strategic Solutions of Melbourne Australia, William P. Hall of the Australian Centre for Science, Innovation, and Society, Melbourne, Australia, and Luke Naismith of Knowledge Futures, of […]

[Read more →]

(Co-Authored with Steven A. Cavaleri) This post is the third discussing the question of enhancing processes and activities we use to develop new ideas. Fourth, current organizational knowledge bases don’t distinguish knowledge from information, and given the importance of previous cultural knowledge for creating new ideas, this is a very big problem for present technology. […]

[Read more →]

This post continues the discussion begun in Part Three of this series with an analysis of problems with the underlying conceptual model of the presentation on the Federal KM Initiative. Here’s a graphic of that model as I’ve reconstructed it from the text of the presentation. Reconstruction of Neil Olonoff’s Conceptual Model Let’s work backwards […]

[Read more →]

Interesting discussion going on at the actkm group. A few days ago, Cory Banks proposed collaboration on a KM Body of Knowledge (BOK). Last night (eastern US time), and yesterday, the discussion intensified about what was involved in creating such a BOK, and, of course about what a Body of Knowledge is. For the ongoing […]

[Read more →]

This entry continues the discussion of John Tropea’s “Knowledge Management as an Ecosystem.” In Part Twelve, I reviewed and critiqued a portion of the presentation up through the discussion of “the new KM.” Here, I’ll focus on John’s treatment of “the nature of knowledge” and in my next blog I’ll discuss his characterization of KM […]

[Read more →]

There were two more highly interesting contributions to the discussion of KM 2.0 in 2007. The first of these was by Mike Murphy (CEO of InQuira), appeared in DM Review, and is entitled “Knowledge Management Revitalized.” The second was by Dave Pollard, appeared in his blog, “How to Save the World,” and is entitled “KM […]

[Read more →]