{"id":73,"date":"2008-09-16T23:58:12","date_gmt":"2008-09-17T03:58:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/archives\/km-20-and-knowledge-management-part-twelve\/"},"modified":"2009-01-16T11:38:47","modified_gmt":"2009-01-16T15:38:47","slug":"km-20-and-knowledge-management-part-twelve","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/archives\/km-20-and-knowledge-management-part-twelve\/","title":{"rendered":"KM 2.0 and Knowledge Management: Part Twelve, KM 1.0 and John Tropea"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Bosky<\/p>\n

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 \u201cWhy KM 1.0 Failed in a Nutshell,\u201d<\/a> John put his finger on a point very essential to this whole debate, when he says the following and then quotes extensively from an interview with Ross Mayfield, the CEO of Socialtext.<\/a><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\u201c. . . this article has some of the best quotes on why KM 1.0 has failed.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This is explained so perfectly from the workers point of view\u2026before you get into KM 2.0, if you want to begin to explain to someone what\u2019s wrong with KM 1.0, these quotes will do the job:\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe way organizations adapt, survive and be productive is through the social interaction that happens outside the lines that we draw by hierarchy, process and organizational structure. The first form of social software to really take off to facilitate these discussions was email.\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cMost employees don\u2019t spend their time executing business process. That\u2019s a myth. They spend most of their time handling exceptions to business process. That\u2019s what they\u2019re doing in their [e-mail] inbox for four hours a day. Email has become the great exception handler.\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cUnfortunately, what it means is all the learning disappears because it\u2019s hidden away in people\u2019s inbox. It\u2019s not searchable and discoverable\u2026\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\u201cSo at the edge of your organization, there are all kinds of exceptions that are happening. If you handle them appropriately, you can adapt to where the market is going. You can adapt to the problems you have in your existing structures.\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026the greatest source of sustainable innovation is how you\u2019re handling these exceptions to business process.\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Here John, and Ross Mayfield, too, put their collective fingers on the difference between operational business processing and knowledge processing in the three-tier model.<\/a> \u201cException handling\u201d is \u201cknowledge processing\u201d and \u201ccreative learning\u201d in that model. Ordinary business processing doesn’t involve creative or non-routine knowledge processing\/learning. That gets done in exception handling.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

John then adds to this quote by offering a statement of Mike Gotta’s<\/a>\u201d which underlines Mayfield’s point. What John doesn’t do here is to explicitly connect his title: \u201cWhy KM 1.0 Failed in a Nutshell,\u201d to these quotes. So, we are left to infer the proposition that KM 1.0 failed because it didn’t deal with \u201cexception handling,\u201d creative learning, and non-routine knowledge processing. And to infer further that e-mail is the primary tool used for this purpose in the enterprise and that social computing software is now creating new capabilities for exception handling that never existed before and that forms the focus of KM 2.0.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There are other things one can infer from John’s entry also however. If one views things from my definition of KM as activity intended to enhance non-routine knowledge processing, implementing Web 2.0 software in the enterprise with the intent of supporting better \u201cexception handling\u201d (i.e. problem solving\/knowledge processing) is KM activity. Whether it should be called KM 2.0 is another issue. But, that aside, the actual use of \u201c2.0\u201d tools is part of knowledge processing and problem solving. Further, if KM 1.0 really wasn’t about enhancing \u201cexception handling\u201d by implementing interventions that were intended to facilitate knowledge processing, then the problem with it wasn’t just that it failed in its intent to do KM, but, instead, was that it was never KM in the first place, because its thrust was to enhance routine business processing by enhancing information sharing, rather than to enhance \u201cexception handling.”<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Now, this is a pretty radical conclusion about KM efforts that used tools that weren’t of the \u201c2.0\u201d social computing variety, and I think, perhaps, that my projection of the implications of John’s view is probably overly harsh. Yet I think there are two points here worth making.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

First, the partisans of KM 2.0 often describe KM 1.0 in an oversimplified way. Thus, it is doubtful whether there ever was a KM 1.0 in the way that writers such as Dave Pollard<\/a> characterize it, except perhaps very early in the history of KM Best Practices systems. Certainly, such an image of KM hasn’t been dominant since well before Web 2.0 were first widely used a few years back. So, the image of KM 1.0 that is often contrasted with the new KM 2.0 is an idealized story about what KM 1.0 was about, designed to facilitate the image of KM 2.0 that its partisans are trying to convey. However, such a distortion of reality can be dangerous, just because its flawed view can lead to explanations of why older styles of KM failed that may be in error. Thus, John seems to be suggesting that older KM efforts failed because they were only about enhancing routine business processing rather than exception handling. But, if, in fact, many KM projects since the mid-90s have been concerned with enhancing problem solving, exception handling, and innovation, then a) it may be that quite a bit of KM intended to enhance knowledge processing may, in fact, have been going on before \u201cKM 2.0,\u201d and b) we may have to explain why these projects failed (when they did) in another way, which perhaps may not be so friendly to the idea that using \u201c2.0\u201d tools represents an entirely new departure for KM, that will work this time around.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

But, second, having said the above, it is also true that many \u201cKM\u201d projects, right up to the present, are about enhancing \u201cknowledge sharing\u201d in support of operational business processing and are not about \u201cexception handling,\u201d problem solving, or innovation. Such projects, however, are often not KM projects, but, in fact, are information management projects using the KM label. This is so because these projects have no way of distinguishing \u201cknowledge\u201d from \u201cjust information,\u201d so what they are enhancing is processes of information flow and they include no capability for measuring whether or not they are enhancing actual knowledge sharing.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On March 18th, John added to his views in an entry called \u201cKnowledge Management as an ecosystem.\u201d<\/a> This post talks about a presentation of John’s<\/a>. It’s in the presentation that we really get John’s much more detailed view of KM 2.0. The presentation, also entitled \u201cKnowledge Management as an ecosystem\u201d<\/a> begins with a discussion of current enterprise issues emphasizing rigidity, closedness and siloing, rigid tools, overuse of email, limited connectivity, and overload in communications. He then presents Mayfield’s views, and then explains that the enterprise issues are happening because KM hasn’t been fluid enough, people don’t participate enough in contributing their tacit knowledge, hierarchy, control, and micro-managing dominates decision making, and sharing feels like a task completely apart from one’s work. He then presents the view that the solution to these problems is a \u201cconversation market\u201d relying on \u201cthe wisdom of crowds,\u201d self-organization, distributed knowledge production, autonomous flows, network effects, and emergence, and then moves on to outlining the characteristics associated with \u201cthe New KM,\u201d as an ecological system. Here’s his list of ‘New KM\u201d characteristics, interleaved with comments of mine on each of them.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JT: — Participation culture (Flatten participation barriers)<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JMF: This is not a KM characteristic, but at best an outcome of an associated characteristic of organizational culture if the New KM is successful in its impact on knowledge processing and its enabling conditions<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JT: — Social computing (participating, networking, initiated by the people (but they don\u2019t call it KM))<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JMF: This is is very loosely expressed, and is therefore deceptive in its implications. Participating and networking initiated by people is a) not necessarily computing, social or otherwise, b) an aspect of such participating and networking may be called social computing if its uses social computing tools, but what these are may be hard to distinguish, c) there’s no reason why anyone should call this KM since it is at best knowledge processing, provided that the participating and networking is about solving problems, and d) the widespread use of social computing doesn’t preclude KM. In fact, KM may be involved in enabling such computing at any time. If not today, then at some time in the future.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JT: — Knowledge Flow rather than manage (Publish\/Subscribe model, Increase interactions (get knowledge moving), Communities\/Networks, Come to me web, Contextual in time of need (just in time), Create \u201cconditions\u201d for knowledge rather than \u201cmanage\u201d)<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JMF: I agree that the general thrust of this is desirable, but its framing is deceptive. \u201cCreating conditions for knowledge\u201d is not, \u201cnot managing.\u201d Unless the view of KM that is assumed is a \u201ccommand-and-control\u201d view. But I don’t know too many in KM (if any) who ever advocated or practiced that. Further \u201cknowledge flow\u201d is neither KM nor incompatible with it. So \u201cknowledge flow\u201d rather than “manage,” makes very little sense to me. I can see that KM ought be concerned with enhancing knowledge flow; but this certainly is not a special characteristic of any \u201cNew KM.\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JT: — Connect and Context vs Content and Collect (Knowledge\/Findability via people (Trusted social filter), Emergence\/Autonomy)<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JMF: I guess I don’t see the \u201cvs.\u201d here. Nor do I see why this is not part of \u201cknowledge processing\u201d rather than \u201cKM.\u201d KM may be about enhancing these things. But they are not KM itself. Moreover, the importance of enhancing connectivity and context have been emphasized for many years in KM. Thoughts like these have been around for as long as I’ve been participating in \u201cformal KM.\u201d That is, since 1998. So, I don’t think this is any kind of \u201cNew KM\u201d orientation.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JT: — Distributed (bottom-up) vs Command and Control (top-down) (Power of many vs a few (wisdom of crowds), Visibility and Opportunity (everyone is a potential innovator), Social Capital (a culture change in working))<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JMF: I understand and agree with the idea that distributed knowledge processing produces more innovation and greater adaptability.<\/a> But this is not KM. It is knowledge processing. Social capital development is also about enhancing the ways in which we process knowledge. KM is what we do to enhance distributed knowledge processing in human systems and to enhance the social capital we use in distributed knowledge processing (See Chapters 4, 6, 9 and 10 of Key Issues . . .)<\/a><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JT: — Unstructured free-form tools (Easier to collaborate, Easier to get things done)<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JMF: I agree that such tools enable \u201cexception handling.\u201d But, again, these are knowledge processing tools. KM may be involved in implementing their availability in organizations. But by themselves, they don’t involve KM activity uniquely.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JT: — \u201cA way to work\u201d rather than a task (Not trying to create a knowledge sharing culture, it just happens)<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JMF: This one is a bit ambiguous. Is distributed knowledge processing \u201ca new way to work?\u201d Is \u201cthe New KM\u201d \u201ca new way to work?\u201d Or both. I do agree that the development of a \u201cknowledge sharing\u201d culture follows enhanced KM and knowledge processing. \u201cIt just happens\u201d as a result of effectiveness in these areas.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JT: — Sense-making (How do I make sense in the enterprise so I can act in it)<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JMF: Sense-making is not KM. Knowledge Managers engage in sensemaking of course, and KM should enhance sensemaking, but better sensemaking is not part of a pattern that identifies \u201cthe New KM.\u201d It is part of a pattern that identifies enhanced knowledge processing.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JT: — Aim Dave Snowden<\/strong><\/em><\/font> (Improve decision making, Conditions for innovation)<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JMF: KM is for improved decision making. This has been one of its major value propositions from its beginning, i.e. enhanced knowledge capture and sharing were supposed to help decision making. Conditions for innovation were not a concern of First Generation Knowledge Management. But they’ve been a concern of Second Generation Knowledge Management since the 1990s.<\/a><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In specifying his view of \u201cthe New KM\u201d John doesn’t claim in the .ppt itself that \u201cthe New KM\u201d and \u201cKM 2.0\u201d are one and the same. In fact, the .ppt implies that they are different, and states specifically, that \u201cKM 2.0 is social computing.\u201d Also, in using the term \u201cthe New KM\u201d,\u201d John doesn’t mention the previous use of the term. And I’d be remiss not to call attention to the frequent previous use of the term (10,500 hits on Google for \u201cthe New KM,\u201d and 53.000 for \u201cThe New Knowledge Management.\u201d)<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

My own use of the term, in \u201cThe New Knowledge Management: A Paradigm and its Problems\u201d<\/a> characterizes it as a paradigmatic approach to KM and says: \u201cTNKM is a complex of epistemology, ontology, conceptual frameworks, methodological frameworks,methods, and a normative model called The Open Enterprise.\u201d Altogether, my treatment of \u201cthe New KM,\u201d written in 2003, employs 16 rather specific criteria to identify this paradigmatic approach to KM. Of course, neither my collaborator, Mark McElroy nor I have a monopoly on the use of this obvious term. But we have developed a very detailed view of the term, and I think that John might perhaps have noted our previous use and the way we had specified the idea.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

His idea, above, is different, of course, and one might counter my various comments on it by pointing out that John intended to specify KM in the sense of an ecological system, whereas in my comments above, I seem to be thinking of KM as an activity or set of activities. All this is true. In previous writings I have referred to KM as an activity, a process of set of activities, a discipline or a paradigmatic approach to a discipline, but never to KM as an ecology. However. My response to such a reply is, that KM can never be an ecological system. This is not because there isn’t an ecology that enables to some degree or other knowledge processing in systems. On the contrary, there is such an ecology and if KM is about enhancing knowledge processing it should be centrally focused on making sure that the ecological system impacting knowledge processing is an \u201cecology of rationality,\u201d rather than an ecology that undermines problem solving. But such an ecology is a normative vision for a state of the enterprise providing a high level of support for knowledge processing, that KM ought to aim at, rather than KM itself. In specifying the New KM, Marl McElroy and I have defined such a normative vision, and called it the Open Enterprise.<\/a> It is not a KM system, but it is the vision of enterprise knowledge processing that we think that KM ought to aim at; and, incidentally, it has a number of commonalities with John’s “KM Ecological System.”
\n<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In my next blog, I’ll continue the discussion of John’s presentation, and will comment both on his treatment of \u201cknowledge\u201d and on his specification of \u201cKM 2.0.\u201d<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

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 \u201cWhy KM 1.0 Failed in a Nutshell,\u201d John put his finger on a point very essential to this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,16,17,15,8],"tags":[638,474,86,478,203,101,471,168,407,3537,472,473,70,51,52,475,481,470,477,56,480,95,479,259,468,469,476,47,49,31],"class_list":["post-73","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-complexity","category-epistemologyontology","category-km-20","category-km-software-tools","category-knowledge-management","tag-638","tag-conversation-market","tag-creative-learning","tag-distributed-knowledge-processing","tag-ecology-of-rationality","tag-emergence","tag-exception-handling","tag-innovation","tag-km-10","tag-km-20","tag-km-20-software-tools","tag-km-ecosystem","tag-knowledge-flow","tag-knowledge-processing","tag-knowledge-sharing","tag-network-effects","tag-normative-vision-for-km","tag-operational-business-processing","tag-participation-culture","tag-problem-solving","tag-second-generation-km","tag-self-organization","tag-social-capital","tag-social-computing","tag-socialtext","tag-sustainable-innovation","tag-the-new-km","tag-the-new-knowledge-management","tag-the-open-enterprise","tag-three-tier-model"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73","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=73"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kmci.org\/alllifeisproblemsolving\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}