KM 2.0 - Myth or Legend ACTKM08

Management & Technology KM2.0 – Myth or Legend? 0 yt o ege d Matthew H d M tth Hodgson ACT Regional-lead, Web and Information Management SMS Management & Technology October 2008, ACTKM08

Podcasts and Slideshare Podcasts and Slideshare www.slideshare.net/magia3e

A little audience participation . . .

Fact or myth? Fact or myth?

Logical or mythological? Logical or mythological?

Objective or subjective? Objective or subjective?

A short history of myth A short history of myth

As we evolved … As we evolved …

Blaming Aristotle Blaming Aristotle Knowledge = Definition

Blaming Aristotle Blaming Aristotle Is: Is not: • Round • Square • Cake • Beer • Sweet • Salty

Repositories for expertly defined knowledge Repositories for expertly defined knowledge

Modern repositories Modern repositories After years of harboring his secret desires Ned finally hits on the senior librarian

More recently … More recently …

… and in our own organisations and in our own organisations

People p Rewards Document management g Keyword AAA Explicit Tacit Workflow Hoarding Workflow Expert review Approvals Retrieval R ti l Classification …the knowledge world we live in g Knowledge capture Guard Content management Data aa Storytelling DIRKS Metadata Knowledge-base Database Business B siness classification scheme Processes Information management Performance

The world of knowledge is changing The world of knowledge is changing

Web2.0: the new world Web2.0: the new world Embraces : • Subjective opinion – even Homer Simpson’s view of the world • Personal stories • Thinking ‘out-loud’, not refined, edited, controlled communication • Interaction and trust between people (not documents or repositories) • Identity, membership and community building y p y g • Instant gratification, low-barrier adoption & light-weight processes Empowers: • I di id l – me as an expert without interference f Individuals t ith t i t f from ‘‘so-called’ ll d’ experts or gatekeepers • C Communities – it’s easy to be involved at any level

Knowledge as a product? Knowledge as a product? Constantly busy Produce Get busy! Work in isolation Expert review something Expert classification and St Store

Web 2.0 knowledge processes Web 2.0 knowledge processes Refine ‘Burst’ of thinking Tag and share Communicate/ Collaborate

Web 2.0 knowledge roles Web 2.0 knowledge roles 33% 19% 13% 19% 15% Source: Forrester Research, 2008 52%

Web 2.0 behaviour Web 2.0 behaviour Creator: Creator • Create, work “in the cloud”, comment, messaging Critic: • Comment trackback, messaging Comment, trackback Collector: • Cl if and tag Classify d t Joiner: • Message, create personal profiles Spectator: • Message, email, passive consumption of material

Web 2.0 knowledge tools Web 2.0 knowledge tools Creator – making new knowledge: • Blog, Wikis, comment fields, instant messaging (eg. Twitter) . Critic – refining existing knowledge: • Blog comment fields Twitter Blog, fields, . Collector – sharing and classification: • Delicious, Magnolia, Tagging . Joiner – contributing to the social cohesion: • Twitter, personal profiles, friends’ profiles, community profiles . Spectator – just watching from the sidelines: • Twitter, email,

Why do they do this? Why do they do this? Creativity, problem solving, spontaneity Self-esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of other b others S lf t fid hi t t f th by th Family, friendship, community, intimacy Shelter, security Food, water, air, sleep Source: Wikipedia (Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, 1943)

It s also about choice It’s also about choice Source: M Hodgson, 2007

It’s a model that works! It s a model that works! Some stats: • 6.5 billion people on the planet • O 1 billion people use th I t Over billi l the Internet [1] t • 0.5 billion use websites that facilitate social interaction, networking, and knowledge sharing [2] • Blogs – 77.7 million unique visitors in the USA alone [3] • Facebook – 41.0 million • M S MySpace – 75 1 million 75.1 illi • Wikipedia – 100 million hours of evolving knowledge, 2.5 illi 2 5 million iin English articles, 167 million revisions, 5.5 million E li h ti l illi i i 5 5 illi registered ‘authors’

How can we leverage this for KM? How can we leverage this for KM? It doesn t just happen – you need good strategy doesn’t People: P l • Understand people – how they think and behave • K Know about organisationall culture – esp. it li it ti b t i ti lt its limitations Objectives: • What behaviour do we want to reinforce and why • What do we want to achieve – the ROI to aim for Technology: • Supporting behaviour with appropriate tools pp g pp p • Know any technology constraints Source: Based on Forrester’s POST model , 2007

Social computing building blocks Social computing building blocks Source: G Smith, 2007

Case study: KM & social computing tools Case study: KM & social computing tools

The problem The problem

Standard solution Standard solution

Team s available brain space Team’s available brain space

Conceptual solution Conceptual solution

Delicious – sharing Delicious HAS PARENT TERM OF TERM EQUIVALENT TO Wiki HAS HAS TERM TERM PARENT TERM OF

Twitter conversations & community Twitter – conversations & community

Delicious sharing bookmarks Delicious – sharing bookmarks

Blogs – sharing, conversations, and community

Benefits of using social computing tools Benefits of using social computing tools Managing the team s knowledge: team’s • People – enabled Web 2.0 role diversity (creators, collectors, etc) • Objectives – share ‘what we knew , as we knew it as it evolved what knew’ it, • Technology – store context, who (selves!) knew what about which terms, terms enabled networking within and without the project For the project: • Quick to set-up and easy to use p y • Accessible – web front-end so available off-site • Saved time – central location de centralised control location, de-centralised • Repository for single source publishing – terms into multiple physical documents for multiple uses

Results The good: • Supported team’s work behaviour, not prescribed it • Vi ibilit of new knowledge practices Visibility f k l d ti • Affected other people’s behaviour - other project teams j from other divisions took notice, joined in, and used these tools The bad: • We had broken traditional editorial approval process • The wiki was closed down …. why?

Culture affects the way we work Culture affects the way we work There are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behaviour of societies and organisations, and that are very persistent across time.

Cultural Dimensions Cultural Dimensions High Power-Distance organisations: Power Distance • Value power according to rank • V l hi Value hierarchy over fl t organisationall structures h flat i ti t t • Love chain-of-command • Demand respect and formal deference for higher status people • Lots of formal processes and policies Low Power-Distance organisations: • Flat structures • Informal processes and policies

Power‐Distance Power Distance Small organisations Team-based work Many government organisations Source: Hodgson, M (2008) The Relationship Economy

High Power‐Distance can kill! High Power Distance can kill! Reinforces: • Empowers gatekeeper mentality • Position power • Control • Knowledge as a linear, edited, and defined product Almost impossible to: • Change – it’s the organisation’s personality we’re talking about • Introduce low-hierarchical activities encompassed by ‘social computing’ social computing

How to get around Power‐Distance How to get around Power Distance When l i Wh planning and d li i strategy … d delivering t t Deploy it: • At a team-levell or project llevell t l j t Plan: • Security measures to keep it inside the team • LLeverage profiles and llogins fil d i Communicate: • From the bottom-up • Sell victories & story-tell lessons learned (blog about it?)

Conclusions KM might be about: • Storytelling • Environments to support knowledge transfer The reality – it’s Aristotle s world of knowledge: it s Aristotle’s • 2000 years of expert knowledge as process • Objecti e factual, scientific and ph sical Objective, fact al physical • Expertly defined • Expertly crafted and classified • Reinforces position-power p p • High Power-Distance • Coming to an end

Conclusions Web 2.0 enables and values: • Subjective – individuals, thoughts, expression, ideas • Personal opinion – whether fact or myth • Self and community rather than ‘experts’ • Different knowledge worker roles – collectors creators collectors, creators, critics, joiners, spectators • Simple light-weight tools knowledge workers can use at Simple, home Web 2.0 is legendary stuff: • S i l revolution online Social l ti li • Heralds a paradigm shift in Western thinking

Fin Welcome to KM 2.0

KM2.0 KM2 0 Myth or Legend?

Matthew Hodgson ACT Regional-lead, Web and Information Management SMS Management & Technology Blog: magia3e.wordpress.com Twitter: magia3e Slideshare: www.slideshare.net/magia3e Email: mhodgson@smsmt.com g @ Mobile: 0404 006695

KM 2.0 - Myth or Legend ACTKM08

by Matthew Hodgson on Oct 14, 2008

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 1

Statistics

KM 2.0 - Myth or Legend ACTKM08 — Presentation Transcript