I have to admit, I'm beginning to get frustrated with much of the rhetoric on knowledge management and even with the writing/research that has been done. There seems to be a lot of people spinning their wheels, saying similar things, but trying fundamentally the same approaches. I had a conversation with a KM software provider this week and while they recognize that KM is 20% technology and 80% people, they still have a tech-centric view of KM while saying that they are focused on the bigger KM cultural/organization issue. I don't fully get it.
Verna Allee's paper article that we read for class last week left me a bit disappointed. In my mind, she didn't say anything really new. The concept that value is not just goods, services and revenues is a rather obvious one (or it should be) and is not a recent phenomenon. It's unclear to me why she arbitrarily breaks off knowledge and "intangible benefits" as the separate value dimensions. It seems there are a hundred ways by which we can divide up the value that crosses from one organization to another. The remainder of the approach also does not look like anything different than a number of academics have already arrived at.
I think part of my issue is that I am biased to KM from the perspective of learning. Thus I think much of what has been written about how people learn is very interesting to the KM field. Myles Horton's We Make the Road by Walking is a great book. Even Robert Gagne's Principles of Instructional Design gives some great insight into what knowledge is and how it is created. I also very much liked the Nonaka chapter from "The Knowledge-Creating Company". Finally, I've seen Hubert St. Orge quoted a number of times (although I haven't read anything written by him) and he always has very interesting things to say.
Just some thoughts...
8:56:04 AM
|