Posted by Phil Murray on September 30, 2002 at 10:29:55:

In Reply to: Re: KM Techonologies and Tools posted by Denham on September 28, 2002 at 17:39:56:

As the indirect target of a rather heated series of postings from Jeffrey Bridges in this thread, I would like to make a couple points:

1. I don't claim that the KMconnection Knowledge Management Product Guide is (a) comprehensive, (b) "finished," (c) authoritative, or (d) objective. But I do hope that it is useful.

I have omitted literally hundreds of tools that could be included in a comprehensive list of KM tools and technologies.

For example, Denham pointed out:

> I like Phil's KM Product guide and agree it is the most complete one
> available - if you agree with his bias that KM does not include
> 'conversation' tools, stories, web conferencing, blogging and
> virtual team work.

Thanks for mentioning those categories and biases, Denham. I need to make my reasons for excluding some of them more explicit and point to resources that *do* cover them.

-- All of those categories can be useful for KM requirements. My bias is (a) others are covering those areas quite well and (b) with the exception of blogging, IMNSHO, those technologies tend to distract us from making knowledge explicit and sharable. Collaboration itself is not the objective; it is a means. We should be doing everything possible to eliminate the *need* for time-consuming collaboration. Do we want to completely consume everyone's day with meetings, virtual and otherwise? You're all welcome to argue the point. (And I'm sure Denham will!!! But I may not have time to respond.)

-- Blogging (and "klogging") *will* be included in the KM Product Guide soon. But people should look to other resources, including Denham's, for more information about blogging. I think Denham is one of the few in KM who can claim early awareness of the potential impact of blogging. It's one of those emergent technologies and trends that validates a growing conviction: that highly useful, non-intrusive KM technology is still in its infancy. Instant messaging is going to help, too. (Thanks, old friend and hypertext/blogging expert Scott Johnson for confirming and enriching that insight.)

[Denham]

> Wenger has a neat classification for community & collaborative tools

See. That's a perfect example of my good judgment in not covering such tools!

[Denham]

> Here are some notes on KM tool selection decisions that I hope prove useful

I'm sure they're very useful, Denham, but the #@%?$ link didn't work! ;-) (It does work after you remove the double quote at the end of the URL.)

On the positive side, my perspective in creating the KM Product Guide taxonomy is: What business problems does the tool solve? The names of many technologies and tools are uninformative and sometimes even misleading -- especially for those unfamiliar with the business problems and the KM technology that has emerged since 1983.

Given the significant limitations of scope I have deliberately and explicitly placed on my resource, I still think it provides a different, useful, and much-needed interpretation of the business functions performed by a limited subset of KM technologies.

So if you are accusing me of subjectivity, I confess my guilt and claim that a function-oriented approach to classifying KM technologies is a very useful starting point.

2. Some other comments:

[Bridges]

> ... humans can use creativity and innovation to develop machine-based
> interfaces to better handle the routine stuff and focus their attention
> on the more interesting value-added stuff where machines have limited
> capabilities - isn't that what knowledge management is all about."

I agree. Of course, there's lots of disagreement about where to focus technology for purpose and how technology should be applied.

[Bridges]

> If you need to look at taxonomies, I would
> recommend looking up some research journals
> that at least do a much thorough, objective,
> and scientific job of developing such
> taxonomies without getting caught in very
> subjective biases such as pitching specific
> vendors or products while disregarding other
> vendors, technologies, and even other
> taxonomies that offer a different perspective.

-- I would be pleased to receive any pointers you might offer to such research. My specific area of interest is faceted knowledge organization.

-- The KM Product Guide taxonomy is very much a work in process, and I invite specific comments and criticisms, which would help me drive the taxonomy to greater usefulness.

-- Other than the specific (and admitted) biases mentioned above, I'm not sure what you mean by " ... very subjective biases such as pitching specific vendors or products while disregarding other vendors, technologies, and even other taxonomies that offer a different perspective." I certainly don't "pitch specific vendors" -- unless you call using KK's Multicentrix and making it clear that it is appropriate for some KM applications a form of "bias." And you have no idea how much I have suppressed some of my biases! ;-) But I learn lots of new things about KM and KM technologies every day, so I try to keep those biases (largely) in check and make it clear exactly what those biases are.

In conclusion, I'm not sure what I did (or what KK did) to deserve such a heated attack. And it's not KK's job to defend my work. It will stand on its own ... or fail on its own.

I have significant differences with Denham about what's important in KM, but I still recommend here (as I have in the KM resources section of my site) that people read Denham's voluminous and useful work.

I will check out www.KMNetwork.com/tools.html

As for my web site, the KMconnection Knowledge Management Product Guide, and my biases ... I do not apologize for my highly subjective viewpoint and I have no intention of providing a comprehensive KM resource. But I hope that 14 years of observation and experience in KM give my viewpoint some weight and value.

I'm willing to let visitors to my resource decide.

Phil Murray

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: KM Techonologies and Tools Jefferey Bridges 11:57:19 09/30/02 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: