Comments on: KM Nerves Are Raw

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:46:28 +0000

Larry: Thanks for jumping in, but there’s no argument.

Carl: Considering where your strongest concerns might be coming from, let me step back and say that for your purposes, the more correct statement is not that KM is Dead — but that it should be (as was the sentiment in the closing of my post referenced at the beginning of this post). As Mike Gotta noted before there are many projects that are successful that are labeled KM…to which I say, success is relative.

There are a lot of successful “information repositories”. Most of the projects I’ve seen with KM labels are nothing more than that (SharePoint included).

Whatever definition you assign to KM, it is a flawed approach to solving the problem space it attempts to focus on. Defining it is not the issue, solving the right problem is.

By: Carl Frappaolo

Carl Frappaolo — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:20:06 +0000

Paula:
you are a whiz at quoting everyone but yourself. Ayn Rand, Clay Shirky, Mary Abraham. But you seem unable to give me YOUR definition of KM. I have no argument with those you quote. For the record I completely agree with Mary Abraham, or at least her comments that you referenced. So until you can back up your statement KM has been DOA for years by defining what you mean I cannot argue with you.

TTFN

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:14:35 +0000

Ayn Rand says that all things are defined by what they are and equally by what they are not. My last comments were just that. THAT WAS my definition.

By: Carl Frappaolo

Carl Frappaolo — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:10:46 +0000

What makes you think I would pounce on your definition. I am trying to debate your comment that KM has been DOA for year. How can that be debated if i do not know what you are calling KM. Please provide a definition. If you are going to make such bold statements you need to be able to back them up. Stop avoiding the issue.

By: Larry Hawes

Larry Hawes — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:01:07 +0000

Whoa folks; calm down! Let’s agree that KM and E2.0 are both labels that mean different things to various people. And that those labels are imperfect attempt to neatly describe a philosophy, not just a bundle of enabling technologies.

Collaboration (another label, but one that serves as a ‘big tent’ for the others IMO) is about people — individuals and their human networks. It is the antithesis of artificially created organizational structure. The real battle here is not between KM and E2.0. It is between organizations that favor control and those that trust their employees, partners, and customers enough to let them manage themselves in pursuit of corporate mission and goals.

Mike says it very well in the last paragraph of his second comment above. Organizations that are willing to trust their people will successfully leverage collaboration to improve effectiveness, efficiency, and profitability. Companies that can’t make that leap in operating philosophy will fail at any collaboration effort they attempt.

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:49:06 +0000

Let’s say I gave you a definition. You’d pounce on it. The definition is irrelevant. Knowledge never wanted to be managed — it’s needs to be freed. KM was a misnomer from the beginning and it has only proven to be so through its failure.

The key is NOT the information but the people — an element that is absolutely and totally missing in the focus of KM activities (or, if there, an appendage). It is the information that is the appendage, not the other way around.

By: Carl Frappaolo

Carl Frappaolo — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:44:19 +0000

Paula:

Lets not drag Mary into this. Still awaiting YOUR definition of KM.

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:36:55 +0000

Carl: As Clay Shirky points out in “Here Comes Everybody”, the craftspeople being obsoleted are quick to denounce the incoming replacements. Your language “asinine…inane” all reaffirm a posture of denunciation.

Rather than meet you where you are, perhaps you’ll consider the very balanced perspective of one of your own colleagues, Mary Abraham: http://tinyurl.com/ln3bof

By: Carl Frappaolo

Carl Frappaolo — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:15:01 +0000

Normally I just try to ignore asinine shock value journalism. “KM has been DOA for year”, maybe in your case. I should just ignore this – but hey I am on a role in trying to purge the market of such inane yellow journalism disguised as thought leadership by those that are hoping it will help keep them in the limelight.
But before I go on I find it hard to argue with Paula’s statement until she gives us her definition of KM. KM has been DOA for years – what exactly are you saying is DOA? Please provide us with your succinct definition and I assure you I will debate with you. Please do not cloud it or hide behind statements like “I understand the initial intent of KM”. We are not arguing “intent” – your statement is that KM has been DOA. So define KM and then lets debate.

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:18:38 +0000

My favorite latest reference is from Lynda Radosevich: Knowledge Unmanagement (http://www.centralityjournal.com/archives/kill_the_20_label_but_keep_the_big_idea.html).