ARTICLES | KNOWLEDGE MGMT | FORUMS | EVENTS | HELP | PRESS ROOM | @BRINT


About BRINT | News About BRINT | Help & FAQs | Users Guide | Advertise Here |
Welcome to the World's No. 1 Resource for Business Technology Management and Knowledge Management
@Brint.com
SEARCH [HELP]

Knowledge Management Think Tank is now: BRINT Global Knowledge Network.

Re: Needs driven KM


[ ] [ Post Followup ] [ Discussion Forums ] [ Discussion Index ]

Posted by Denham on November 17, 2000 at 11:10:13:

In Reply to: Re: Needs driven KM posted by Vaughn P Fox on November 16, 2000 at 00:25:55:

Is it critical to recognize what information people need to gain knowledge they require to achieve understanding, which may lead to wisdom? I find it very difficult to see how knowledge can be effectively managed without a clear recognition of what needs to be done and a clear recognition of information needed to gain knowledge.

I guess we part ways somewhere here, it may be an incorrect interpretation on my part. Seems people are very astute at determining their own needs once they have a clear idea of their roles, alignment with the company (department) purpose and stable identity. Their 'needs' may alter on exposure to news, after reflecting, self-organization or through dialog. I guess my hesitation here is around who determines the information needs, if this comes from an outsider I have doubts if this is the way to go or the ideal route to knowledge.

Is a reflection around information gap analysis useful for knowledge management? - yes, provided it is done in a community, should it be the guiding principle for KM? - hardly. Gap awareness is important, but there are other key issues at play here. Establishing an environment for experimenting, having a culture that allows failures and recognizes the power of learning from them, having open communications and a collaborative spirit, having alignment on purpose and the ability to question where we are headed.

I got the impression from reading your posting that you think managing knowledge requires people to actually transfer knowledge. For me it is not around knowledge transfer (which I too think is very problematic), it is around critique, sharing, emergence of new insights (leading to different actions), validations and conceptualizations via dialog. KM is about alignment on what knowledge means within a community, co-design of a knowledge strategy, emphasis on knowledge creation, rather than reuse for longer term viability, and leverage of group insights (and activities) via collaboration.

We may not be that far apart here.



Follow Ups:



Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

Subject:

Message:

[ ] [ Post Followup ] [ Current Discussion ] [ Discussion Index ]


Download Our Articles and Interviews
[Guru Interviews] [Real Time Business Processes] [IT Adoption and Utilization] [Managing and Measuring Knowledge Assets] [The Real Competitive Advantage] [Why IT and KM Systems Fail] [Myths About Expertise Management] [How 'Best Practices' Become 'Worst Practices'] [Beyond Information Ecology to Knowledge Ecosystems] [Knowledge Exchanges and Social Networks] [Why Expert Systems Aren't Enough] [KM for E-Business Performance] [Does KM=IT? Not!] [Other Articles and Interviews]



Top of Page

BRINT: 'Your Survival Network for The Brave New World Of Business'tm
Recommended by Business Week, Fortune, Wall Street Journal, Fast Company,
Business 2.0, Computerworld, Information Week, CIO Magazine, KM World,
Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and hundreds of other worldwide publications.

About BRINT | News About BRINT | Help & FAQs | Users Guide | Advertise

Make BRINT your Start Page | | Link to BRINT | Submit Articles

Terms of Use | Privacy | © Copyright 1994-2007, BRINT Institute, New York, USA