Theknowledgecore's Blog

Complexity and Knowledge Management Navigators…

Technology is a response, not a point of departure!

Time for my regular Sunday blog and I find myself as frustrated as ever – so, forgive me, but this is a little bit of a rant this week — nothing to do with being nervous about Ireland Vs Wales in the 6 nations this afternoon (come on Wales!) [Edit…. we won 🙂 21-23]

Two articles landed on my desktop via the TwitterShpere last week that I found both telling and frustrating:  KM in 2012 (Probably dead) – and –  Forbes:  The Evolution of Knowledge Management – a guest post written by Greg Merkle, VP of Product Strategy and Design at Dow Jones.  The former seems to have been written to elicit a response, well, it has, and so I’ll accept that it met its purpose.  The second, well, I think I’ve said all I want to in my last blog.

Here’s the thing, it doesn’t matter how you attempt to re-brand KM, it doesn’t matter how many times we declare it dead (some would say that the concept was Dead On Arrival…I have said before, and will say again, we need a paradigm shift to something more appropriate), the bottom line is that discussion on the coordination of knowledge as a resource has been around since, at least, the First Industrial Revolution – it’s perhaps a good idea to know where you come from in order to know where you’re going – and, unless you understand the strategic and operational drivers for the concept… well, let’s just say that it doesn’t matter where you hide the rubbish, it’ll only stink up the place in the end.

Don’t get me wrong, it is clear that people are getting it – this is from Stefano Barale (responding to ‘KM in 2012’):

I agree that KM probably needs a stronger “scientific base” (in order -for instance- to define “objective” indicators of changes produced by KM in the organization), but I disagree that technological changes will -alone- morph KM into Social Business. Every freshly coined KM specialist will tell you that KM is much more about Learning that about Tech.
Informed, participatory technology design within the interested organization SHOULD be IMO, one of the outcomes of good KM

The bottom line is that we need to understand that technology, like KM, is a response, it is NOT a point of departure.  If you understand the challenges then you can respond, that simple.  But, here’s the rub, if you keep trying to manage knowledge in the same way you manage information, if you keep trying to drive technology as the solution, if you believe that ‘Social Business’ is the new and improved KM, then you just don’t get what KM is really about in the first place and it will fail.

In order to make decisions, it has to be about evidence; it is how we work and why we try to make everything we do as transparent as possible – this is as much about knowledge exchange as it is about responding to operational challenges.  The M-Model sets the scene for KM; please take a look and you tell us, how does technology offer a knowledge solution when people sit at the heart of the process.  The ‘best’ technology response will come from understanding the scope and scale of the problem, and is itself a response to the challenge.

I also believe there to be a duty of care on the part of people who put themselves forward as ‘thought leaders’, as with the author of ‘KM in 2012’, to ensure that they are driving evidence-based practice and not just getting people lost on a pleasant Sunday drive.

Cheers…. David

11 comments on “Technology is a response, not a point of departure!

  1. Glenn Behenna
    February 5, 2012

    Hi David,

    Yet another little gem from you. Simply and clearly expressed views, which are a refreshing contrast to so many contributions from too many others in the KM field.

    Is your stress reduction kit equally suitable for the public and private sectors???

    Come on Wales……….and looking forward to England being sent packing as well : – )

    Kind regards,

  2. Pingback: Technology is a response, not a point of departure! |

  3. Nikolay Kryachkov
    February 5, 2012

    What’s wrong with this definition of ‘knowledge’?

    knowledge – the facts or experience known by a person … ;

    known – identified;

    identify – to understand …;

    understand – to know and comprehend the nature or meaning of, to know what is happening or why it is happening …;

    happen – to be or do something;

    action – doing something for a particular purpose.

    Thus understanding of action within natural limitations is knowledge.

    We are always limited in our actions and can not act beyond Nature. Space, time, something or someone else … are our natural limitations.

  4. Nikolay Kryachkov
    February 5, 2012

    The definition above was deduced openly from English-English dictionary. The terms “management” and “knowledge management” etc. can be deduced analogously.

    • David Griffiths
      February 5, 2012

      Hi Nikolay…yes, I get the definition; sorry, trying to understand what you are getting at?

  5. Pingback: Technology is a response, not a point of departure! |

  6. Hi David, I like your work on this post and the last one on Lessons Learned. Looking forward to catching up. Regs Stephen

  7. Hi David, I like your work on this post and the last one on Lessons Learned. Looking forward to catching up. Regs Stephen

  8. Pingback: Really good day today for Forex121 – 300 pips gain : Forex System & Sports Betting Service Reviews

  9. Pingback: My Homepage

  10. Pingback: Co-evolving KM « Connections and Contradictions

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: