Bookmark me NavigationRecent blog posts
|
The Invisible DisciplineI've just finished two days at KM Singapore 2008. The first day included awards, prizes, book launches, a knowledge cafe, and a panel discussion. The second day consisted of four workshops. It was a pretty good event, but I was struck by the invisible nature of knowledge management. Not one person in the panel or in open discussion was prepared to call the discipline knowledge management! Why? Well the stock answer was it's perceived by senior management and workers as a fad, or something that adds to their burden, so if we call it something else and disguise the fact we are trying to do knowledge management then we can do what we want to do. Even the professor chairing the panel, who runs a knowledge management course, was not prepared to call it knowledge management! This really is a bit sad and some might even argue downright dishonest. I think the real problem is we claim almost anything to be knowledge management. We can play games and that's knowledge management. We can design and implement taxonomies and that's knowledge management. We can map relationships and that's knowledge management. We can implement risk mitigation strategies and that's knowledge management. I've even attended an event where juggling somehow aided knowledge management! The problem is by themselves none of these things are knowledge management. They are tools, techniques, and methods - nothing more and nothing less. Combining several tools, techniques, and methods to cover the spectrum of people, process, technology, and content might be knowledge management, but I'm beginning to wonder whether the time has come to call the discipline what it is - just plain old ‘management'! I for one have run a knowledge management project. It did encompass the spectrum of people, process, technology, and content, and we did use the dreaded K-word. Our sponsor even put the word knowledge into his title. That said if we as practitioners are not prepared to publicly call what we do knowledge management, then why claim in a forum of our peers that it is knowledge management. Let's be honest with ourselves - we're either doing knowledge management or we're not. We're either running a holistic project, or we're simply using a tool, technique, or method. Transparency and honesty matters! Regards, Graham
categories:
|
Research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind. |
Re: The Invisible Discipline
Nice post Graham.
I agree that if we as practitioners aren't prepared to stand up and say what we do is Knowledge Management, then our discipline is in real trouble!
The distinction between "knowledge management" and plain old "management" is often raised.
For me the difference is that of managing business processes (the nuts and bolts of what people do every day versus managing knowledge processes (how people learn and solve problems in the course of doing their work).
Or to put it another way, effective knowledge management should deliver sustainably better problem-solving capabilities and improved adaptability for an organisation.
Which is something that traditional management approaches simply will not achieve.
Re: The Invisible Discipline
Thanks for your comment Stephen.
Based on your reply, and my previous post, I guess this firmly positions you in the behavioural school of knowledge management. I'll also hazard a guess and say your 'philosophy' is strategic, approach is about consciousness, and aim is to improve capabilities.
I agree with you traditional management approaches have their limitations, but so do "knowledge management" tools and techniques used in isolation. My real point is knowledge management is a collection of tools and techiques, not one used in isolation.
Regards Graham