Posted by Robert Benjamin on June 13, 2000 at 10:33:57:

In Reply to: Re: Where KM Strategies Succeed posted by Ron dW on June 10, 2000 at 10:10:39:

Hi Ron

Sorry for the delay in replying. I have been offline for work reasons.

Practitioners often seem to have this need to reduce concepts into measurable, scientific lines. I agree with the business benefits this approach presents.

On the other hand, I also agree to maintain a fuzzy property to allow for change and the unexpected. The fuzzy part of an approach is very difficult to quantify and measure, but I think we should still look at finding ways to do so, due to the benefit in flexibility and other benefits.

For example; If true value is derived from employee-to-employee conversation (knowledge sharing?), then do we:
A) Measure the number of one-to-one or one-to-many events of contact as the value measure - increase employee reward on a pro-rata basis?
B) Eavesdrop on the conversion and have a review board decide whether or not the outcome was valuable enough for the company - increase employee reward on a pro-rata basis?
C) Take the sharing for granted and carry on as usual - reward as usual?

The assumption that employee sharing could increase with rewards is implied.

These are really difficult questions KM needs to answer, and I guess we are in some small way part of the people trying to produce such answers.

Best regards

Robert

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: Where KM Strategies Succeed Denham 13:34:08 06/13/00 (5)
  • Re: Where KM Strategies Succeed Robert Benjamin 08:02:04 06/14/00 (4)
    • Re: Where KM Strategies Succeed Ron de Weijze 11:20:51 07/08/00 (3)
      • Re: Where KM Strategies Succeed Robert Benjamin 06:34:56 07/10/00 (2)
        • Re: Where KM Strategies Succeed Ron de Weijze 17:12:17 07/10/00 (1)
          • Re: Where KM Strategies Succeed Robert Benjamin 05:31:22 07/11/00 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: