{"id":70,"date":"2008-09-13T01:55:18","date_gmt":"2008-09-13T05:55:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/archives\/km-20-and-knowledge-management-part-nine\/"},"modified":"2009-01-16T03:06:51","modified_gmt":"2009-01-16T07:06:51","slug":"km-20-and-knowledge-management-part-nine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/archives\/km-20-and-knowledge-management-part-nine\/","title":{"rendered":"KM 2.0 and Knowledge Management: Part Nine, Doug Cornelius and KM 2.0 in Law Firms"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"m31\"<\/p>\n

At the same time Bill Ives offered his blog, Doug Cornelius began a series of blogs on \u201cLaw Firm Knowledge Management 2.0.\u201d<\/a> Cornelius defines Law Firm Knowledge Management 2.0 as: \u201cLaw firm knowledge management 2.0 is about incorporating Web 2.0 \/ Enterprise 2.0 technologies and processes into the law firm knowledge management toolkit.\u201d And he poses the question:<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\u201c(a) enterprise 2.0 is a subset of knowledge management (b) knowledge management is a subset of enterprise 2.0 (c) knowledge management is the same thing as enterprise 2.0 (d) knowledge management has nothing to do with enterprise 2.0?\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

He doesn’t quite answer the question he poses, however. Instead he says:<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI have come to the conclusion that enterprise 2.0 and knowledge management are two disciplines that need to join together.\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And he says further:<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIncorporating enterprise 2.0 technologies into the knowledge management toolbox, gives people easy to use – easy to learn tools. It allows them to capture and organize their information in a way that works for them. The focus of knowledge management should be on the individual, by giving them tools for personal use, the content of which can leveraged by the rest of the enterprise. Knowledge management is trying to get people who do similar things communicating with each other and collaborating. Then capture that collaboration for their own re-use and re-use across the enterprise. That sounds like what the enterprise 2.0 movement is about.\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This view of Cornelius’s makes a vague kind of sense, but it relates collaboration, communication, content, and a greater capability for individuals to organize information which can be more easily aggregated to the organization level. The mystery however, is what this all has to do with knowledge processing and KM. Certainly the statement above doesn’t make the connection between enhanced collaboration, communication, content, etc. and Knowledge Management except to assert that KM \u201cis trying to get people who do similar things communicating with each other and collaborating.\u201d However, it’s hard to see why it is not just Collaboration Management, rather than Knowledge Management.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In addition to these general views on the subject, Cornelius included specific ideas relating various Web 2.0\/Enterprise 2.0 tools to KM 2.0. Wikis remove the technological barrier in capturing content, but they require attorneys to synthesize that content in wiki pages. The synthesis is an advantage over an e-mail approach. The stream of edits may be pushed out to subscribers, and may be easily searched and and results retrieved, The wiki can act as a simple content manager. But it can also engage subscribers in conversations.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

RSS feeds are viewed as a tool that makes wikis more powerful. They disaggregate content from source. One can see new content without going back to a web site, and also see the flow of information rather than just static content. \u201cRSS turns a webpage from a repository of information into a broadcaster of information.\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Cornelius sees blogs, wikis, and RSS feeds as the three most important Enterprise 2.0 technologies. Blogs are easily publishable html web pages, providing the ability to quickly capture knowledge and publish it, and making it available for others to find and search. Law firm administrators can use them \u201cto make the law firm community aware of new information, policies and happenings.\u201d Others can participate in blogs by adding comments. So, blog posts and comments are captured elements of collaboration and communication.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In his blog series Cornelius also comments on how wikis, blogs, and RSS feeds can combine with earlier technology tools (presumably KM 1.0 tools) to produce enhancements in knowledge sharing. Thus, Document Management systems produce repositories in which it is hard to find information and content one is looking for. But wikis and blogs can \u201cidentify and highlight the better content in the document management system,\u201d and this can enhance search within these repositories. Going further, blogs, wikis, and RSS feeds can provide people with a more organized, searchable and sharable form of communication than e-mail, whose use needs to be reduced in Law firms. Also, there are problems associated with enterprise search. These include accessibility, searchability, and findability. A key problem associated with these is the idea of doing one search across all sources \u2013 the idea of federated search (though Cornelius doesn\u2019t use this last term). However, even though this problem is raised, no explanation is given of how blogs, wikis, RSS feeds or other \u201cKM 2.0\u201d tools can help with enterprise search.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The series on \u201cLaw Firm Knowledge Management 2.0\u201d ends with a summary post<\/a>. One statement in the post clarifies very well Doug Cornelius\u2019s idea of KM.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThese are just technology tools. At its core knowledge management is about collaboration and sharing. Different people and different groups communicate and collaborate in different ways. As a knowledge management professional, I focus on bringing people together to communicate and collaborate. I want to give them tools to make it easier for them to communicate and collaborate.\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

He sees Web 2.0 tools as enhancing communication, collaboration, and sharing and that\u2019s why he talks about \u201cKM 2.0.\u201d This makes clear a positive aspect of his point of view. That is, he\u2019s quite aware that KM 2.0 is not just the new software tools. Rather, he views it as getting people to collaborate, communicate, and share through the use of a combination of old and new tools. But my question is: why is this KM 2.0, rather than Collaboration Management 2.0? What\u2019s the difference between these two fields? Why is there no attempt in his treatment of KM 2.0 to distinguish between information and knowledge, or information sharing and knowledge sharing? And why, finally, is there no attempt to distinguish between the acts of collaboration, communication, and sharing, and Knowledge Management itself? Cornelius\u2019s series is another example of the conceptual blurring of key distinctions we find in much writing about KM. At the beginning of his series, Doug Cornelius posed the questions:<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\u201c(a) enterprise 2.0 is a subset of knowledge management (b) knowledge management is a subset of enterprise 2.0 (c) knowledge management is the same thing as enterprise 2.0 (d) knowledge management has nothing to do with enterprise 2.0?\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And as I said earlier, he never answered these questions. We can now see some reasons why. First he has no clear ideas about the differences between content, information, and knowledge. Second, he has no clear idea about the differences between Information Management, Content Management, Collaboration Management, and Knowledge Management. Without such distinctions, however, how can one analyze the relationship between Enterprise 2.0 and KM 2.0, since Enterprise 2.0 is clearly a much broader concept and must include all of these types of management, and still other types, in addition to Knowledge Management?<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To Be Continued<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At the same time Bill Ives offered his blog, Doug Cornelius began a series of blogs on \u201cLaw Firm Knowledge Management 2.0.\u201d Cornelius defines Law Firm Knowledge Management 2.0 as: \u201cLaw firm knowledge management 2.0 is about incorporating Web 2.0 \/ Enterprise 2.0 technologies and processes into the law firm knowledge management toolkit.\u201d And he […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,15,7,3,8],"tags":[635,427,428,160,3537,417,3531,51,429,158],"class_list":["post-70","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-km-20","category-km-software-tools","category-knowledge-integration","category-knowledge-making","category-knowledge-management","tag-635","tag-collaboration-management","tag-content-management","tag-enterprise-20","tag-km-20","tag-km-20-tools","tag-knowledge-management","tag-knowledge-processing","tag-law-firm-knowledge-management-20","tag-web-20"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70","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=70"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}