Some great KM links:


KM Case Studies

The Seven Myths of KM

Standards Australia KM Framework

The Knowledge Management, Auditing and Mapping Magazine

Knowledge Mgm't Revised : Theory Doesn't Equal Practice (article dated Jan 2001!!)
(excerpt: organizations, say their users aren't interested in reusing old
data. Rather, the early KM adopters are building systems that connect
workers to resident experts on various subjects--but the knowledge exchange
occurs offline)

Organizational Story and Storytelling

McKinsey Quarterly Article on The Case for Building Online Communities
(you require premium membership to view this article)

Fall 2001 issue of the IBM Systems Journal covers KM (excellent resource!)

I got one learning from Sumita's post in XLCCM...discovering and owning up one's
own biases and prejudices often gives a worldview a much better
perspective and makes us more honest. For us Indians, educated under
a system which was set in place by a British Viceroy, I reckon we
haven't changed it much till now...

What does that give us in terms of mental models and frames of
references?

1. The collective unconciousness of our pan-Indian culture...which
is itself such an amorphous thing ... :)
2. The frames that our western education gives us...for those of us
who studied in "convent" colleges this manifests as an "alien"
thought over the unconscious, which we internalise.
3. The frames that popular culture gives us as we grow up, which is
very American in nature compared to 2. which is Anglo-Saxon in
ethos..

Any wonder why the urban Indian experiences such an "alien-nation"
(pun intended ;0)

To a query on HRGyan on:
1. What is the distinction between Capability, Competence and Capacity?
2. When we discuss about developing the competency, Capability of an
organization, what approaches can we take to integrate these attributes..

My reply:
Consider a glass which is half full with a liquid...

Capability : refers to the volume of the liquid
Competence: refers to the properties of the liquid
Capacity: refers to the amount of liquid that can be kept in the glass.

When you talk about developing the capability of an organization the focus
is on the breadth of skills that can be built to enable business to
profitably work. When you develop the competency of an organization you are
talking of making it possible for the business to grow faster and not just
work.

In my understanding e-governance is the IT driven system that
connects a citizen with the State. Hence, if we have to visualise a
system it should be a one stop shop where a citizen can see the
status of his/her transactions with the state on the computer/palm
top screen.

What is the scene that knowledge management can play in this
scenario?

Currently the information about an individual are kept in silos in
various state government departments. Sharing of this information
between departments is few and far between. In addition with
changing government policies new systems are being built up all the
time.

You can go through THIS SITE
for more details.

Hi All,
The IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based Organizations (IKO) studied the role
of trust in knowledge sharing.
Factors such as the strength of the relationship between the knowledge
seeker and the knowledge source, the difference between competence-based and
benevolence-based trust and the type of knowledge being exchanged were
explored.
Data from a two-part survey of 138 people in three companies were analyzed
to discern how trust affects knowledge sharing and how individuals evaluate
the trustworthiness of others when seeking knowledge.

My web page is Here

Please visit it and leave your comments on the guestbook :-)

My post on the HRavenues site on whether HR is an asset or liability

Couldn't resist jumping into this debate...

My POV is quite simple....if any department (be it HR, sales, marketing,
Ops, Finance) does not add value to the business then it is a liability and
the business has two options before it:

1. Outsource it
2. Increase capability so that it becomes value adding in the long run.

The question is often asked, what is value adding and what is not...and it
is easily assumed that 'operational' stuff is not value adding , while
'strategic' stuff is...

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Operational tasks when done with keeping aligned to the business needs are
potentially the best source of value that any department could add to the
business.

It needs to be relooked as to what our 'assumptions' are about 'value'. Most
people in the corporate world assume value=monetary value and there the
calculation of intangible benefits that HR offers is usually overlooked :-)

If 'locked' value is looked at the difference between 'potential' and the
'reality' of teams, individuals, organizations to create results, influence
and growth then we'll have a more holistic definition of 'value'

My response to a query on the IHRC list on why senior management don't follow dress code !

The dichotomy that is being exhibited is the manifestation between
the 'espoused' values of the organization and the 'practiced' values.

Unfortunately when values are not co-evolved or co-owned, management
interventions only tinker with espoused values which get enshrined
in fat policy books or get framed on the walls, which nobody bothers
to internalise.

As a HR person, my suggestion to you would be to take it as a
feedback to the system. Obviously this is a symptom of a deeper
malaise or value system that is in operation even at the senior
levels. And these behaviors are setting patterns for behaviors down
the line...

So examine,
1. What mindset do senior managers have towards a dress code?
2. Dress is often a symbolism of a person's professional identity,
where 'suits' are equated with 'conventional' jobs like banks. Do
your management people see themselves as 'cutting edge' people? Is
that why they dress the way they do?
3. Whose belief is that partners and vendors would take a very
formally dressed person seriously? Is it the mindset of a few people
who make policies? Has anybody ever bothered to find out from
vendors and partners as to whether it makes a difference to them?
4. Finally, what should change? Should your policy change or should
the people in your organization change? Which change is more self-
defeating in the long run?

On the Trdev list my thoughts on training and other stuff:

Hi folks,

Constantly have this question asked from my customers when we approach them
with training programmes that we do.
"It seems very reasonable, but can you prove it?"

In reality what he/she is asking is "How do I know that you can really do
the things you claim to do?"

(maybe, this is going to lead this thread into a wholly new
dimension....pardon me for that!)

The questions get asked in various ways, couched as ROI, 'value' ,
'references' etc

We really don't know how to 'handle' these questions...important as they
are...and the fact that we do programmes that are called "Building
Innovative Teams" doesn't help :-))

That is because:

1. We have had cases where a group was triggered enough by the training to
go out there in 'real life' and apply the things they learnt to achieve
business successes
2. We've also had cases where we'd had to handhold the participants after
the program and work them through projects where they apply tools and then
notice the change
3. We've also have cases where we've worked everything with a group from
training to facilitation to consulting and they've been unable to break out
of their patterns of mental models and behaviour

So, the whole discussion has to take into account even the group of people
'getting trained' and looking at the learning climate of the whole
group...and one aspect is that of transferring the learning from the
abstract fields of the classroom to the 'real' field of the business...if I
had to look for the competency of the 'perfect' learner...that would be it
!! Maybe the people who read "who moved my cheese" have that ability to
transfer learning better than some trainers :-))