What Is KM? Yes, We’re Still Asking…
Funny thing KM. It seems we’ve been asking what it is as long as its been around. Case in point, a little post by Ross Mayfield which critiques some of the early KM practices, and offers a new term – Manage Knowledgement (MK).
Ross defines his new term as “a way of describing KM that’s backwards but works “, and that with MK, through blogs and wikis, the principle activity is sharing, driven by social incentives.
Problem is, as Luis Suarez points out, relying exclusively on social software offers no more balance than exclusively relying on tracking explicit knowledge, or what Mayfield describes as ‘traditional KM’.
No need to critique here, as Luis Suarez makes all the points I would. But what I will add is that in a law firm setting, I see KM as a balance as well, but also as a series of building blocks – along the lines of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
And in that hierarchy, a firm should tackle explicit knowledge prior to implicit knowledge, to the extent that explicit collections are already identified or established. As an example, firm precedents, memos & opinions, or agreement collections should take priority over social software. In most law firms, these collections are already in existence, or sitting in binders in your lawyers’ offices. To ignore them in favour of extracting more unorganized implicit knowledge makes little sense. Wouldn’t it be better to have an established collection in place where the ‘best-of-breed’ discussions & postings could be highlighted and classified by subject? Surely every piece of content derived from social software is not of the same value?
Simply put, I think firms should get their content collection houses in order before tackling the high-end features of their KM program. Can explicit and implicit needs be tackled simultaneously? Sure, but explicit KM collections still provide the overall context, and need to take priority.
Two cents worth: I do not think that KM needs to be complicated, especially when considered as a problem space – similarly defined as another related problem space on Information Management.
Patrick, as you’re probably aware, we slice the data-information-knowledge continuum a bit differently … but no worries, tom-eh-to, tom-ah-to, as long as you keep me thinking. :-)
You’re right, KM-IM doesn’t need to be complicated, but it also doesn’t hurt to be analytical about our approach. There are only so many resources in a corporate setting, and prioritizing can be vital to a program’s success – especially early on.
Here is my take where, yes, I seem to be advocating for the use of social software: http://www.llrx.com/columns/tao5.htm
But, being a newbie, it is very possible I am being naive. Hey Steve, are your ears burning? I think you are mentioned in there somewhere…
I LOVE reading articles like that Connie. ;-) The kind mention aside, I wish more Librarians would entertain a KM role in their firms. We have the skill set, so in many ways, it’s just a matter of ‘buy in’ and trust. Senior law librarians who have long term relationships with their firm lawyers are in an excellent position to shepard the process – and as you mention – calling it KM or not, it’s time to get in there!