I’ve been busier than usual for the past week and will be even busier for another week; so I have to postpone further work on my KM 2.0 series for awhile in favor of some posts that require less effort. This one will pose a question. Why don’t we see much impact modeling in Knowledge Management?
In past blogs, and various papers, I’ve characterized KM as the set of activities undertaken with the intention of enhancing knowledge processing, and I’ve also talked often about the three-tier model just below.
Both notions imply that KM activities have impacts on knowledge processing, knowledge outcomes, business processes (including the decisions and actions that comprise them), and business outcomes. Even if others view KM differently, everyone who practices KM assumes that KM activities have their effects, or at least combine with other things to have an effect. To put this another way, anyone who practices KM must assume a conception such as that illustrated below:
So when we plan KM interventions and when we evaluate results after the fact why aren’t we modeling impact? And as long as we’re not doing that, how can we expect to make the case that KM works?
2 responses so far ↓
1 National Governmental Knowledge Management: KM, Adaptation, and Complexity: Part Thirteen, Still More On Evaluating the Impact of KM and Knowledge Processing // Mar 13, 2009 at 12:33 am
[…] the relationship between ecology and knowledge enhancements. It also makes it easier to develop middle-tier knowledge processing and knowledge outcome metrics. Even though the fourth problem of evaluation is […]
2 National Governmental Knowledge Management: KM, Adaptation, and Complexity: Part Eleven, Evaluating the Impact of KM and Knowledge Processing // Mar 13, 2009 at 12:44 am
[…] an earlier blog, I used this visual to ask why there was very little modeling of KM impact going on, and also asked […]