Comments for Boeing on knowledge management

Comment from reasonable robinson on 2007-10-30

2007-10-30T08:13:56Z

Looks like Boeing are implementing a typical Neo Modernist knowledge management approach that is founded upon a managerialist version of the organisational learning philosophy. In other words 'we need to control, measure, and create a knowledge management environment' Additionally the seem to 'see' this KM as a technically driven process. All of these notions should be contested. Knowledge, Know What and Know How and the process of Knowing are as much the asset of the employed as the employee and as such should be discussed in a negotiated context and not simply 'captured' to secure competitive advantage. Additionaly merely identifying, storing and distrubuting 'knowledge' cannot of itself ever ensure competitive advanatge. This is simply a fadland management mantra that is delusional in its expectations.

Comment from jackvinson on 2007-10-30

2007-10-30T13:45:06Z

Thanks for your comment, RR.

The issues you've identified are right up there in my mind with the fallacies of "enterprise knowledge management" as promoted in the 1990's. While some of that is happening in the Boeing example, I could also see a lot of opportunity for them to move beyond this view of KM and into a view where people (the employees) are encouraged to have more control over the process.

Comment from Jerry Ash on 2007-10-30

2007-10-31T01:37:12Z

Hi Jack.

Great find on Boeing. I'm currently working with Pauline DeGard, knowledge strategist at Boeing, on a case report for the December/January issue of Inside Knowledge magazine. By the way, I've given it the working title of "Chasing the Vapor Trail".

What's happened at Boeing, like many companies, is that the advent of personal computing has fractured the organizational database and the company's critical knowledge is now scattered among personal computers and in a plethora of formats. Today's social network approach to decision-making takes place to a great extent in email with documents stored as attachments.

Compounding the problem is what Paulette DeGard describes in Star Wars language as the changing of the guard from "Masters" to "Padiwans" as the graybeard retire and young apprentices take their places.

Paulette and her team have done an amazing job of pulling existing knowledge and information together and that's what my story is all about. It will be in the December/January issue (my first as the new managing editor).

Congratulations on being on top of things!

Jerry Ash
Managing Editor, Inside Knowledge magazine
Founder/manager, Association of Knowledgework

jash@kwork.org
http://www.ikmagazine.com
http://www.kwork.com

Comment from Jim Coogan on 2007-11-06

2007-11-06T06:58:20Z

The problem with such a short article is that people can get the wrong ideas based on very small amounts of information. KM at Boeing is far from technology centric. There was only one slight error in the article. We do not define KM loosely. It is defined as a disciplined holistic approach to effectively utilize expertise for competitive advantage. And what we mean by this is that it starts and ends with people. What we practice, and have done so for over 14 years, is a very people centric form of KM.

Comment from Jack Vinson on 2007-11-06

2007-11-06T16:56:46Z

Thanks for jumping into the conversation to correct that misinterpretation. Given the brevity of the article and all the efforts mentioned, I am not surprised that people could get the wrong impression.