Why Knowledge Matters

Note on the Seven Principles of KM

It appears that my link to the original author's post at Cognitive Edge is not available, so in order to capture the knowledge here for future use, I am listing the 7 principles without any descriptions that should be available at the author's posting on Rendering Knowledge. Hopefully I can at least link to David Snowden's blog to find the details on the principles when I need full access.

• Knowledge can only be volunteered it cannot be conscripted.
• We only know what we know when we need to know it.
• In the context of real need few people will withhold their knowledge.
• Everything is fragmented.
• Tolerated failure imprints learning better than success.
• The way we know things is not the way we report we know things.
• We always know more than we can say, and we will always say more than we can write down.

I generally hate to capture this much of a post, but do not want to be without a reference to this hard earned knowledge. Great stuff.

Seven Principles of Knowledge Management

Several years ago, I had become introduced to David Snowden's 3 rules of Knowledge Management. I thought for sure that I had posted something on the subject, but all I could find was a brief note about how Snowden seems to always be ahead of the pack where KM is concerned.

At the time, I had read some of Snowden's work (some of it admittedly well over my head), but the 3 rules were easy to grasp and seemed instinctively true. For instance, "we always know more than we can say, and we will always say more than we can write down."  It's a very basic truism - previously unstated - which as a defined heuristic provides some insight into Knowledge Management.

All this because my Google Alerts indicated that Claire at Fletchspace had blogged that David Snowden had updated his original 3 rules to 7 principles of KM.  I had hoped to see where I noted the 3 and any thoughts I may have had at the time, and then see how things had evolved. Not to be found...but the update is available at this link at Cognitive Edge, and includes the direct straight-forward principle, with a description.

But anyone dealing with Knowledge Management and knowledgeworkers should be familiar with these principles and should bookmark them and refer to them often.

The Demise of KM - Part 2

Groucho Marx (American comedian) was often quoted as saying something like, "I won't belong to any organization that would have me as a member." 

Pumacy Technologies AG, a German-based company released this past week the results of an exploratory study that they did of Knowledge Management blogs, and named 50 blogs that are a part of their study.

In a roundabout way, Google Alerts notified me that Mary Abraham's blog, Above and Beyond Knowledge had linked to Jack Vinson's Knowledge Jolt announcing the study. So I eventually get around to the study and YKM (this blog) is listed on it. This is surely the sign of the KM apocalypse.

Of course, I appreciate the attention to the blog...why not....most posts are breadcrumbs for my own future re-use, but what was the selection process? 

In fairness, Pumacy is a Knowledge Management vendor. They appear to just be supporting the fact that the KM space is thriving and full of active participants writing about various aspects of KM....which is done here...and Pumacy did locate some prolific bloggers including the 2 mentioned above...but based upon the amount of postings, amount of comments and Google ranking, it just strikes me as a lack of good research (time and/or effort) on Pumacy's part add this blog to the list, instead of going out and finding the really active KM blogs and list them as a part of their study.

Since they studied and printed it once, hopefully Pumacy will continue their study and bring to light some great blogs.

The Demise of KM - Part 1

A well trained lecturer once advised to never begin a statement by announcing how many points you want to make, such as "I have 3 things to say about that..." since there is a good chance that you'll actually think of a fourth (or more) while you are relaying them. I will add to that advice through my experience, saying that you should never declare how many points you are about to make since you are bound to forget at least 1 of them (particularly if you are over 40 like me).  So while I have a list of things that I want to blog about in the near future about Content Management, I have at least 2 things to say about the demise of Knowledge Management.

Over coffee this morning, I was enjoying Perspective on Designing and Managing Knowledgework at the Wierarchy blog. It's a two-part series with the second part located here (it was a little difficult to find). It is a long article, so grab a cup and enjoy.

The posting, which began as a article for Inside Knowledge magazine and was turned into a MasterClass, provides a history lesson of the industrial age and the rise of Taylorism (think time-and-motion studies), which is the doctrine known as Scientific Management. If there is nothing else that I can take away from the article other than its rich history, it is that it took a long time for Taylor, and particularly the disciples of Taylor to get the word out and applied in business.

Speed of spreading the word about KM is not the same problem that Taylor experienced, but speed of adoption is the challenge of all change of this nature.  As the wierarchy posting indicates, if it took Taylorism 30 years to become the standard in a business market that is a fraction of the size that it is today, then the 10 - 15 years that Knowledge Management has been garnering headlines is just the beginning.

So, the disappearance of KM?  Not likely to happen soon....

Knol Watch

I was hoping to not get caught up in Google's Knol and perhaps come back to it in 6 months for a review of their progress, but thanks to Google Alerts, Knol marches on.

Google Alerts sent me to Ron Young's KM Consulting blog, and his announcement on July 31st, that he had posted a Knol (unit of knowledge) on Knowledge Management (KM). The interesting take that Ron has on Knol is that he views the tool as a space for collaboration. His blog posting indicates that Knol has allowed him to develop the article on line, editing and adding as he goes, and he is currently asking for reviews and feedback. In his words:

"My first article is far far from complete, but because it is a Knol, it can be rapidly developed, continually improved, and I can refine and develop it further over time and experience. What I urgently seek now is comments and even reviews. Any sort of feedback is very much welcomed."

In visiting Young's knol Knowledge Management in the 21st Century, I found a well designed unit of knowledge.

As of today, the know was already up to its 17th revision. At over 2500 words, KM in the 21st Century is quite a sizable unit of knowledge. Mixing some history of KM, with a definition, a description of KM tools, and a scope for KM's future, I thought it was educational and helpful. I would say my only negative comment would be in the length of the Knol, which is not a good judge of value...just an impression. I enjoyed the content, so I think I'll reserve judgment until I read more knols, re-read Ron Young's knol, and then, of course, I will post some comments there and give Ron a choice to take it or leave it!

While I was there, I thought I'd see what else was cooking, so a current search of Knol shows 13 knols on Knowledge Management. As expected, there is a lot of room for growth, but some early adopters have taken advantage to forge the way. Somehow I'm expecting more Google Alerts in the short term.

Launching a Unit of Knowledge

I was tipped off by a colleague this week that Google's knowledge management play, Knol, has recently been launched.

Originally announced via blog in mid-December with a formal press release in January, Knol - short for Unit of Knowledge - is a Wikipedia-type site, with a few major differences. 

The Knol home page clearly states that a Knol is "an authoritative article about a specific topic."

Whereas Wikipedia is a somewhat "open" environment, inviting everyone to contribute to dynamic articles, Knol mandates the creation of an article by a single user, which is unalterable. Users can comment upon the content, ask questions, and rate the value of a Knol, but they cannot edit it.

The other major difference is that Wikipedia's contributors are mostly anonymous (unless you look at the history, but even then it displays login names) and Knol requires the expert be credited and take their bows or lumps.

At Knol, I saw plenty of contributions by medical doctor's about all sorts of medical conditions (which seems to be the majority of the content at this time) and a recipe for excellent pancakes.

Hey, the site is very new and Wikipedia has a 7 year head start - if that even matters. Knol is ripe for all types of content and should be interesting to watch over the next few years.

Launching a Unit of Knowledge

I was tipped off by a colleague this week that Google's knowledge management play, Knol, has recently been launched.

Originally announced via blog in mid-December with a formal press release in January, Knol - short for Unit of Knowledge - is a Wikipedia-type site, with a few major differences. 

The Knol home page clearly states that a Knol is "an authoritative article about a specific topic."

Whereas Wikipedia is a somewhat "open" environment, inviting everyone to contribute to dynamic articles, Knol mandates the creation of an article by a single user, which is unalterable. Users can comment upon the content, ask questions, and rate the value of a Knol, but they cannot edit it.

The other major difference is that Wikipedia's contributors are mostly anonymous (unless you look at the history, but even then it displays login names) and Knol requires the expert be credited and take their bows or lumps.

At Knol, I saw plenty of contributions by medical doctor's about all sorts of medical conditions (which seems to be the majority of the content at this time) and a recipe for excellent pancakes.

Hey, the site is very new and Wikipedia has a 7 year head start - if that even matters. Knol is ripe for all types of content and should be interesting to watch over the next few years.

Information Overload Hits the Big Time

About six months ago, I posted here that Information Overload (IO) was going to become a pertinent topic for discussion this year as study of the problem would intensify. A recent Information Overload Conference (great link for the statistically inclined) in New York City hosted by Basex is evidence of the growing concern and discussion/search for solutions.

Observations started at YKM as early as September 2005 with Knowledgeworker interruptions (from email, text, land/cell calls, visits, et al). Basex is at the forefront of the issue with continual observations and regular reports in their weekly TechWatch newsletter.

The Information Overload link above is chock full of facts from the conference, but the research is showing some generalized results:

• It was reported that most interruptions are non urgent/important, but are treated as such (and we allow the interruption). This, and the time it takes to re-focus, represents 28% of the day.
• 25% of our time is spent productively in content creation (including email).
• We spend 20% of our time in meetings.
• 15% of the day is spent in searching for things.
• Thinking and reflecting (productively?) represents 12%.

Expect more research into IO. I have received some comments, and there are postings, that the $650 billion dollars in waste that Basex has estimated that interruptions cost the US economy is probably on the conservative side.

While Basex continues to dig into interruptions and email mis-use,  research has and should continue to be done on some of these other areas of our day, including the productivity of meetings, search, and reflection.

Learn from Living

It is interesting that during the course of any given day, there are probably at least 6 - 12 things that a person experiences that can be chalked up to Knowledge Management, or that can be incorporated into one's knowledgebase. 

Unfortunately I do not have a lot of time for surfing the web and looking for the latest news...I let Google Alerts point me in the right direction.

Well I became aware of a blog posting by David Snowden of Cognitive Edge, where he catalogs just such an experience in his day...but in his case, he was not only able to identify KM in use, but was able to isolate the various facets of the knowledge in his post Knowledge In Action. From his one experience, he was able to show knowledge in action in 4 different ways and then weave a story  that shows each's applicability.

Information Overload in the Knowledge Universe

Last week, Basex, conducted a 15 minute Webinar on the subject of Information Overload (I.O.), the video of which is still available for viewing.

Work interruptions and general overload has been a growing problem, which Basex has been following closely for quite some time (I first commented on Basex's Interruptions research back in September 2005) and while they have always garnered some press on the subject, they are starting to get more traction with the media outlets.

The vast sources of knowledge, available on the net, within the business, inside your team and now made more accessible, ensures that we're always buried in one or more of our gadgets designed to keep us in touch with our necessary resources. Then, combine that with the fact that 'knowledge' or at least content is being produced in greater volume than every before, and that managers and knowledgeworkers are not trained in how to handle the onslaught, and you have a big problem. How big?

The costs of information overload, which includes such things as email and cell phone interruptions, poor quality of search in the enterprise, and just pure volume of information are staggering at an estimated 2.1 hours per day  per knowledgeworker and dollarized to be $650 billion in 2007 in the U.S.. The unmeasured cost? Stifled innovation and restrained productivity. 

So for 15 minutes (1 minute to register and 14 minutes for the video of the Webinar), it's time well invested to better understand the problem identified, become aware of some known solutions, and to get connected to Basex who will be studying the I.O. trend and potential solutions more closely over the next year(s).