Toluu

All Life Is Problem Solving

Joe Firestone's Blog on Knowledge and Knowledge Management

KM 2.0 and Knowledge Management: Part NineteenNovember 11

This post completes my analysis of Ray Sims’s presentation to the Boston KM Forum on April 9, 2008. Ray envisions three scenarios to relate Web 2.0 and KM. The first of these states that “Web 2.0 is ideally situated to support Personal Knowledge Management / Personal Learning Environment (PKM/ PLE).” Ray argues for that by presenting a “View Your Mind” map of his own personal learning environment. He distinguishes the following categories in his “mind map”: text, audio, writing and drawing, formal training, people, data and information hacks, physical space, and reflection. Within the text category, blog-related 2.0 applications, web-related 2.0 applications, intranet-related 2.0 applications, and reference 2.0 applications are mentioned. In the audio category, feedreader, ipod, and podcast web 2.0 applications are mentioned. In the writing and drawing applications, blogging is mentioned. In the people area, web 2.0 social networking applications are mentioned. In the data and information hacks category, a personal w

KM 2.0 and Knowledge Management: Part ThirteenSeptember 19

This entry continues the discussion of John Tropea’s “Knowledge Management as an Ecosystem.” In Part Twelve, I reviewed and critiqued a portion of the presentation up through the discussion of “the new KM.” Here, I’ll focus on John’s treatment of “the nature of knowledge” and in my next blog I’ll discuss his characterization of KM 2.0.

 

John begins by referring to the “need to understand the organics of knowledge,” and says that he is “more naturally favourable to flow model rather than a content management model.” He then moves on to consider heuristics for approaching “knowledge” offered by Dave Snowden and others.

 

An immediate problem with this approach is that it avoids John’s view about “the nature of knowledge.” There are disputes out there in

KM 2.0 and Knowledge Management: Part TwelveSeptember 17

On March 17 and 18th John Tropea, one of the most active bloggers on KM 2.0 and social computing issues made two very interesting contributions to discussion of this issue. On March 17, in a blog entitled “Why KM 1.0 Failed in a Nutshell,” John put his finger on a point very essential to this whole debate, when he says the following and then quotes extensively from an interview with Ross Mayfield, the CEO of Socialtext.

 

“. . . this article has some of the best quotes on why KM 1.0 has failed.

 

This is explained so perfectly from the workers point of view…before you get into KM 2.0, if you want to begin to explain to someone what’s wrong with KM 1.0, these quotes will do the job:”

 

“The way organizations adapt, sur

KM 2.0 and Knowledge Management: Part ElevenSeptember 16

Oscar Berg, in a blog entry on February 24, 2008, writes about Andrew McAfee’s take on Enterprise 2.0 and its relationship to KM. He says:

 

“What strikes me about Andrew McAfee’s definition is that it is very technology-oriented. It does not say anything about the purpose and potential value of emergent social platforms for companies. However, Tom Davenport reports that Andrew McAfee said that “the ultimate value of E2.0 initiatives consists of greater responsiveness, better ‘knowledge capture and sharing,’ and more effective ‘collective intelligence’ at his talk at the FastForward conference in Orlando last week. Tom Davenport draws the conclusion that Andrew is in essence talking about knowledge management.

 

“I must admit to that KM and Enterprise 2.0 have their similarities when you look at what they ultimately aim to achieve. But does this mean Enterprise 2.0 simply is the next major version of KM? Should we in fact call it KM 2.0 instead? No,

KM 2.0 and Knowledge Management: Part NineSeptember 13

At the same time Bill Ives offered his blog, Doug Cornelius began a series of blogs on “Law Firm Knowledge Management 2.0.” Cornelius defines Law Firm Knowledge Management 2.0 as: “Law firm knowledge management 2.0 is about incorporating Web 2.0 / Enterprise 2.0 technologies and processes into the law firm knowledge management toolkit.” And he poses the question:

 

“(a) enterprise 2.0 is a subset of knowledge management (b) knowledge management is a subset of enterprise 2.0 (c) knowledge management is the same thing as enterprise 2.0 (d) knowledge management has nothing to do with enterprise 2.0?”

 

He doesn’t quite answer the question he poses, however. Instead he says:

 

“I have come to the conclusion that enterprise 2.0 and knowledge management are two disciplines that need to join together.”

 

And he says f