Is there a next stage to KM 1.0, 2.0, ...
Atle Iversen (fixed spelling, sorry!) has a series of posts on what he is calling Knowledge Management 3.0. I like nearly all of what he has to say. Some relevant quotes:
Collecting and sharing with others is still important, but what you share with your project is not necessary the same as you share with your department, division or your organization.
- There is no point collecting common knowledge if it isn't shared.
- There is no point sharing knowledge if it isn't used.
and later
If you don't know why you want a KM system or what you want from it, you probably won't succeed (and probably shouldn't even try).
I totally agree with this idea. There is no point in doing knowledge management if it doesn't help you get things done. It's hard to believe that you would want to do anything else.
While there may be a 3.0 to knowledge management, this progression doesn't do it for me. (There are many other descriptions of movements in KM that give it three, four, five stages, depending on your point of view.)
If your KM efforts aren't bringing some kind of value or changing the way you do business, then why are you doing it?
2 Comment(s)
Thank you for your nice comments, Jack !
Calling it KM 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 etc may be a bit silly, but at least it makes it easier to identify what we are talking about when we are discussing knowledge management.
Comments to Stephen Bounds:
Actually, the articles focus on how "embedded, unconscious processes and organisational culture" is often *much more* important than writing down and sharing the things we know.
There has been *too much* focus on writing down (KM 1.0) and sharing (KM 2.0), and this is not always that efficient. The really valuable knowledge is usually very hard to write down and share, and why waste a lot of effort on writing it down and sharing it if no one is actually *using it* (KM 3.0).
Whether it is called a progression of theory, a shift in focus or a different philosophy (or anything else) is not that important to me :-)
BTW, it is Atle Iversen (people from Sweden often have -son ending (the son of "Iver" etc) but in Norway it is more common with -sen )
Leave a comment
Previous entry: Rules of business events
Next entry: Too much on the plate
Syndication Options
KJolt Memberships
Hi Jack,
I have to say, I read these articles and I didn't get the sense Atle was progressing the theory of Knowledge Management to '3.0' or any other version.
The focus of the article was really on how to get people to extract their tacit knowledge and convert it into written documentation. I felt the ideas were circling back to old style Information Management but with shiny new tools.
In my view, the differentiator between Knowledge Management and Information Management is that Knowledge Management seeks to harness the complexity of systems. Embedded, unconscious processes and organisational culture is just as important to effective KM as writing down and sharing the things we know.