![\"savagestate\"](\"http:\/\/www.dkms.com\/kmci\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-content\/themes\/cutline-3-column-split-11\/images\/savagestate.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Until the late spring of 2007, discussion about KM 2.0 had raised a number of issues and themes including:<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n — KM 2.0 is KM which utilizes Web\/Enterprise 2.0 tools to enable greater connectivity and self organization in one’s enterprise;<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n — Before the introduction of Web\/Enterprise 2.0 tools KM had been a command-and-control-oriented approach, but KM 2.0 introduces an entirely new orientation focusing on self-organization and community;<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n — KM 2.0 social media tools are used in the service of creating an ecology that improves connectivity, resulting in building relationships and trust, resulting in better communications and knowledge sharing;<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n — Is KM 2.0 the use of the new social media tools in an enterprise? That is, is KM 2.0 equivalent to Enterprise 2.0? Or is KM 2.0 a more broadly social activity that simply uses the new tools as an instrument?<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n During the remainder of 2007, the discussion of these themes continued. A good example is provided by Paula Thornton in a post entitled \u201cKnowledge Doesn’t Want to Be Managed:\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n \u201cIn deference to Bill Ives\u2019 <\/font>recent post<\/font><\/font><\/a><\/u>, 2.0 and KM are not in the same galaxy. The fundamental potential of 2.0 is emergent (referred to in the <\/font>discussion at the Web 2.0 Expo<\/font><\/font><\/a><\/u> in April). Knowledge Management is and has always been a misnomer: knowledge cannot be managed.\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n That is, KM 2.0 is nonsense, because KM is about control of knowledge which is nonsense; while 2.0 is about enhancing \u201cYour ability to think and act,\u201d and also about \u201cemergent\u201d knowledge.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n In September of 2007, Jennifer Okimoto, of IBM Global Services, made public a slide deck entitled \u201cIndustry Trends: the evolution of knowledge management (KM 1.0 vs. KM 2.0). The slide deck makes the far from innovative point that KM is about creating the perfect balance among people, process, and technology. It proceeds to make the more important point that traditional, KM 1.0, and KM 2.0 methods co-exist since \u201cas <\/font>new sources and methods to share knowledge appear, none of the old disappear.\u201d Jennifer Okimoto then presents IBM’s view of the evolution of KM and collaboration in a two column, 11 row table, full of dichotomies. The left column is labeled \u201cKM and Collaboration in the past,\u201d and the right \u201cKM and Collaboration moving forward.\u201d Here are the 11 dichotomies:<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n 1) “KM and collaboration is extra work\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font> vs. \u201cCollaborative work is what work is\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n 2) \u201cKM and collaboration are sets of tools\u201d vs. \u201cCollaboration is co-authoring the outcome\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n 3) \u201cI work by myself\u201d vs. \u201cI am immersed in the conversation of the workplace\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n 4) \u201cPeople directories provide contact information\u201d vs. \u201cDynamic profiles reflect what I do, with whom, and how well I do it\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n 5) \u201cWork happens in unannounced groups\u201d vs. \u201cWork happens publicly where everyone participates\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n 6) \u201cContent is protected\u201d vs. \u201cContent is fluid and is developed through participation\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n 7) \u201cSearches for content and experts are unrelated\u201d vs. \u201cExperts lead to content, content leads to experts\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n 8) \u201cMy value to the company is based on my deliverables\u201d vs. \u201cI am a professional whose value is based both on my deliverables and my reputation\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n 9) \u201cCustomers are interesting\u201d vs. \u201cI depend on customers for feedback\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n 10) \u201cThe online experience is a Conversation with text and data\u201d vs. \u201cCollaborative work and Conversation with data are equally important\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n 11) \u201cTargets increased productivity\u201d vs. \u201cProvides a platform for innovation\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n These dichotomies are all very interesting, but the question is do they describe reality or are they merely a \u201cstraw man,\u201d even a myth about what the characteristics of KM and Collaboration were and what they will be moving forward. I’m afraid I come down on the side of myth, a mere story in the pejorative sense, a consultant’s device used to brief and persuade prospective clients rather than an attempt to develop a serious characterization of what KM has been like in the past, and what it will be like moving forward. Thus, nearly every one of the left side of these dichotomies either has little to with KM or alternatively describes KM inaccurately. That is, the left side of dichotomies 3-11 have nothing directly to do with KM prior to September of 2007 in the sense they are part of any formal view of KM that is current in the KM literature. Also, KM has not been viewed as a \u201ctool\u201d by a majority of KM practitioners, for at least a decade, and as far as I know collaboration has never been viewed as a tool in KM, but as a very important social activity. <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n It is true that KM has been perceived as \u201cextra work,\u201d but this perception is related to a view of what KM is, that is highly questionable. That is, KM, viewed as an activity aimed at enhancing knowledge processing is <\/font>always<\/strong><\/em><\/font> extra work, and remains extra work even if web 2.0 tools are provided through a KM intervention, however, knowledge processing is not necessarily extra work. It is what people do when they have to solve problems. It should be part of their daily work, and certainly can be, and often is embedded in it. Collaboration is also often involved in problem solving, and when it is, it is not extra work, but, it too, is part of problem solving. <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n In any event, even those who confuse KM and knowledge processing and use the two terms interchangeably have been attempting to perform KM in such a way that knowledge processing is embedded in work. That is the whole idea in back of \u201cjust-in-time\u201d KM, which pre-dates \u201cKM 2.0\u201d by at least 5 years. <\/font><\/font><\/p>\n When we look at the right-hand side of the 11 dichotomies we, again encounter the question of the relationship of KM to dichotomies 3-10. That is, perhaps these do describe KM 2.0, but why should we believe that? What is the connection between some explicit notion of KM and the right-hand side of dichotomies 3-10. To be even more specific, anyone can say they are characterizing KM going forward and then specify some list of characteristics that is supposed to describe KM 2.0, but why and how are these characteristics related to the underlying idea of KM. I’m afraid that’s not clear in the slide set. In fact, there is no underlying idea of KM expressed in the slide set, which is why it is so hard to understand what either the left or right-hand sides of these dichotomies have to do with KM.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n Nor is the relationship of the right-hand side of dichotomies one and two to KM clear. Both dichotomies refer explicitly to collaboration, but, at least on the right-hand side, not to KM. So what is the significance of this? Is Jennifer Okimoto saying that KM 2.0 is really \u201ccollaboration?\u201d If so, this is clearly just a misuse of language.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n Finally, dichotomy 11 is posed as: \u201cTargets increased productivity\u201d vs. \u201cProvides a platform for innovation.\u201d Presumably this is to make the claim that KM used to be about increasing productivity, but going forward will be about providing a platform for innovation. However, there was never universal agreement that KM was about increasing productivity, and the idea that one of the primary purposes of KM is to enhance innovation has been mentioned in KM from the beginning, and had gained wide recognition by the year 2000.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n A final slide in the presentation is about \u201cdriving critical people connections.\u201d and identifies:<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n — \u201cMobilizing and mining the collective brain\u201d (Extended enterprise, structured)<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n — \u201cGlobal water cooler\u201d (Extended enterprise, unstructured)<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n — \u201cHelping hand in collaboration,\u201d (Group, structured) and <\/font><\/font>— \u201cTargeted yet free flowing collaboration\u201d (Group, unstructured)<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n While this is perhaps a useful typology, it doesn’t clearly distinguish KM 1.0 from KM 2.0, from my point of view, though clearly it does if one were to assume the validity of the characterizations of KM 1.0 and 2.0 provided earlier.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n In sum, Jennifer Okimoto’s slides provide a perspective on the KM 1.0\/2.0 issue that goes far beyond the previous discussions of the subject, and for the reasons I’ve given above is a bridge much too far, because it is based on highly questionable characterizations of both conjectured states of KM. In Part Four, I’ll continue my discussion of views of KM 2.0 developed in 2007<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Until the late spring of 2007, discussion about KM 2.0 had raised a number of issues and themes including: — KM 2.0 is KM which utilizes Web\/Enterprise 2.0 tools to enable greater connectivity and self organization in one’s enterprise; — Before the introduction of Web\/Enterprise 2.0 tools KM had been a command-and-control-oriented approach, but KM […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,17,15,7,3,8],"tags":[1230,101,278,281,168,280,3537,282,3529,56,95,279,158],"class_list":["post-49","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-complexity","category-km-20","category-km-software-tools","category-knowledge-integration","category-knowledge-making","category-knowledge-management","tag-1230","tag-emergence","tag-enterprise-20-knowledge-management","tag-ibm-global-services","tag-innovation","tag-jennifer-okimoto","tag-km-20","tag-km-and-collaboration","tag-knowledge-making","tag-problem-solving","tag-self-organization","tag-social-media","tag-web-20"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}