Posted by John Tieso on April 06, 2002 at 10:53:00:

In Reply to: Future Techniques and KnowledgeMapping in manufacturing corporations posted by Florian Resatsch on April 06, 2002 at 07:48:02:

An interesting set of questions. Here's some input that may help.

1- KM is only useful when it can result in something actually placed in operation that provides 'push-pull'capabilities. it is, of course, important to have technology support, such as portals, to ensure that enough information is available to support knowledge methods. Portals, in particular are helpful since they remove the artificial barriers that have prevented effective KM within world-wide organizations in the past. They provide a window to outside information, to associated individuals within the organization, but at remote locations, and also a way to leverage information, best practices and other types of value information that others have already created that bear on a current problem.

2- Contrary to what some would have you believe, KM is not a new concept. Rather, it is an evolving one that can make use of a wealth of capabilities that have emerged under one umbrella, but were created under many umbrellas. John Deere has had what they call an Intranet for several years. it is really a portal, I guess, in that it has e-commerce capabilities, supported by an electronic catalog that is accessible by any partner anywhere in the world. However, it also has a very rich knowledgebase that often enables any remote partner to access information of a wide range of management, technical and operational topics that have proven successful elsewhere and can be adopted, or adapted, in any location. When used, Deere expects that the knowledgebase will be updated with current information on use.

3- KM projects should be designed to make it as simple as possible for staff to access the knowledge base, and even simpler for inclusion of new ideas, experience and complex task descriptions to be placed in the knowledge base. Sears, Roebuck developed such a knowledge base several years ago that had simple rules. Any employee at any level could enter information on how they perform a particular task-simple or complex. Any other employee or manager could use that information to improve their own performance at their own location. Sears made it easy to adopt new ideas, contratulated employees who contributed those ideas and, if they did not work elsewhere, did not criticize anyone for its lack of success. Employees felt empowered and, when they did, they contributed in large amounts to the knowledgebase. Not everything was used by others, but it was there if someone needed it.

4- It seems that there are a lot of people out there wanting to do knowledge maps. The maps themselves are useless without documentation of skill sets, formal and informal interactions, and other information that sets the context on how work is actually performed in a particular location. That mix may or may not be reproducible in other locations.

Hope some of this helps

---

Follow Ups:

• Reply to Denham and John Florian Resatsch 05:26:12 04/08/02 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: