Posted by Barry on May 03, 2004 at 07:20:17:

In Reply to: Re: Who Should Own KM? posted by Denham on April 28, 2004 at 23:02:13:

I do know that it doesn't communicate well from the bottom up. Communication from the bottom up is an ENTIRELY different subject. It involves pleases, yes sirs and outward displays of reverence. If Knowledge management as a subject ommits these nuances, it's because it's meant to come from the top down.

As I see it, KM is a subject that was designed to be communicated from the top down, and only then as a packaged subject. Taking individual parts of the subject and trying to communicate those, leaves the audience wondering "What is he talking about."

What does work ,in theory, is communicating Value Propositions, from the top down, as in "this is what this package will do." Show some success stories from other companies, and THEN introduce the subject that lead to these gains. Honestly, I've never seen it communicated that way. Just heard it can be done.

I say "introduce the subject", because I think maintaining the package of workable ideas is important. They work together.

As far as doing something from the bottom up, that's notoriously difficult. There are ways to arrive at some of the KM value propositions from the bottom up (though on a much smaller scale). It's called "would you be so kind as to brief me on this project. I greatly appreciate your brilliance in the way you assigned me these tasks but I'm clueless about what's going on, silly me." There is much to be said for politeness, refinement, and "how you ask", but it's not quite the same as KM the textbook subject. KM expects information sharing. On a person to person level though,it's all in "how you ask."

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Who Should Own KM? Tony Manero 08:47:51 05/08/04 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Name: 

  E-Mail: 

 Subject: 

Message: