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 →]

In my last two KM blogs, I’ve analyzed the relationships between KM and conflict, in the context of seeing problems, making knowledge, and integrating knowledge. This post will extend the analysis to the top-tier of the Three-tier model, Knowledge Management activity itself. I distinguish three major top-tier categories of KM activities. These are activities: I) […]

[Read more →]

In my last KM blog, I analyzed the relationships between KM and conflict, in the context of seeing problems and making knowledge. This post will extend the analysis to integrating knowledge. I classify knowledge integration activities into four categories: knowledge and information broadcasting (KIB), searching and retrieving (S and R), teaching, and sharing. All of […]

[Read more →]

Recently, in the actkm group, my friend Stephen Bounds raised the question of the relationship of KM to conflict in the context of a specific situation in which excessive conflict behavior within a project team was threatening successful completion of the project. This led to a pretty vigorous discussion and a great variety of opinions […]

[Read more →]

People who view Knowledge Management from outside the field often make the mistake of viewing KM as much more homogeneous a field than it in fact is. They tend to think that “KM” means something very specific, and that what it means is the understanding of it they may have gained by reading one or […]

[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 →]

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 →]

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 →]

From the beginning of KM there’s been remarkably little focus on metrics and measurement. In particular, there’s been remarkably little focus on metrics of KM impact. This lack of focus is in line with a certain anti-scientific orientation that has appeared in KM associated with the philosophies of post-modernism and social constructivism. It is also […]

[Read more →]