All Life Is Problem Solving

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 →]

I’m sure everyone has seen the oft-repeated “fact” that 80% of the information we deal with is unstructured and that only 20% is structured data.   Seth Grimes of Alta Plana and Intelligent Enterprise has written an interesting article on this claim here.   It’s worth your time.  

[Read more →]

On March 17 and 18th John Tropea, one of the most active bloggers on KM 2.0 and social computing issues made two very interesting contributions to discussion of this issue. On March 17, in a blog entitled “Why KM 1.0 Failed in a Nutshell,” John put his finger on a point very essential to this […]

[Read more →]

Oscar Berg, in a blog entry on February 24, 2008, writes about Andrew McAfee’s take on Enterprise 2.0 and its relationship to KM. He says:   “What strikes me about Andrew McAfee’s definition is that it is very technology-oriented. It does not say anything about the purpose and potential value of emergent social platforms for […]

[Read more →]

On February 19, 2008, Tom Davenport, one of the most well-known names in KM, published a blog post entitled “Enterprise 2.0: The New, New Knowledge Management?” Before, I discuss this piece, full disclosure requires that I call attention to the fact that “The New Knowledge Management” is the “brand name” that my collaborator, Mark McElroy, […]

[Read more →]

At the same time Bill Ives offered his blog, Doug Cornelius began a series of blogs on “Law Firm Knowledge Management 2.0.” Cornelius defines Law Firm Knowledge Management 2.0 as: “Law firm knowledge management 2.0 is about incorporating Web 2.0 / Enterprise 2.0 technologies and processes into the law firm knowledge management toolkit.” And he […]

[Read more →]

Well, we’ve finally arrived at 2008, certainly the most active year thus far in the KM 2.0 boom. I don’t know whether this is the Year of KM 2.0, since perhaps we’re still not at the peak of debate and discussion over the idea. But 2008 has certainly increased the frequency and intensity of discussion […]

[Read more →]

The year 2007 ended with a very interesting take on KM 2.0 by one of my former correspondents, Dave Pollard (See for example 1, 2, 3). Dave, who is given to emphasizing the social networking aspects of things provides this definition of KM:   “In a recent post where I waxed rhapsodic about how the […]

[Read more →]

In my last post, I introduced the problem of evaluating whether something is a KM software application by distinguishing KM and its outcomes, knowledge processing and its outcomes, and business processing and its outcomes. I also pointed out that software applications could contribute to any of the tiers of the Three-tier Model, and that software […]

[Read more →]

Software vendors feel very free to claim that theirs is a KM Software application. At the height of KM’s popularity, in 1998, I’ve even had the experience of running across a document copying vendor who claimed that theirs was a KM Software application. Well, it’s a software vendor’s job to make claims that may sell […]

[Read more →]