- There is distinctly pragmatic approach to both Laurie & Shawn's work.
- This may mean simplifying the source material and adapting it to local needs.
- There is a willingness to mix approaches from different sources where appropriate.
In many ways with chimes with Thomas Barlow's book on the history of innovation in Australia. As a nation, we are great at taking other people's stuff and making it work. You want a 2020 vision, then go for this. The Chinese are brilliant at ripping off other nation's brands (and creating their own unique forms of innovation in the process). We need to return to our past as the China of Ideas & Tools.
I doubt Australian KM will ever produce someone with the mercurial brilliance of a Dave Snowden or the visionary fervour of a Verna Allee. We are more likely to produce writer/practitioners with the clarity of Tom Davenport or the considered erudition of a Larry Prusak (although arguably Singapore has got that last one already).
N.B. I have probably offended everyone mentioned in this post but I'm writing this with a huge amount of respect & gratitude to all concerned. And if you don't like what I've said about you, well, tough.
Posts
9 comments:
You can be forgiven much for "mercurial brilliance" Matt. However a distinction needs to me made between adaption and unacceptable dumbing down. From what I have seen of Shawn's work he has taken across or Anecdote Circle work, uses the Cynefin framework and has recently sold SenseMaker. He is using other material as well - and that is something we encourage, but I have not seen any compromise of the methods he has used, unless you have seen something different?
Hullo Dave - What do you mean by "compromise"? That wasn't a word I used in my original post.
Simplification then Matt, but it is usually a euphemism for compromise, or it just didn't make sense. CE methods are in the main formalised, and in simple form not requiring the theory in most cases to run them. You implied the need for a translator which I don't see unless you can give me an example where the method has been simplified (or adapted for that matter).
DS - I disagree that simplification necessarily means compromise. And you seem to be implying that compromise is bad - is that always the case?
I don't really want to get into specific examples on a public website but we can take that off-line if you wish. From what I can tell, CE methods are being adapted all the time by practitioners (sometimes well, sometimes badly). After all, the context that the practitioner finds themself in will be different to the contexts in which the method was created and previously reused.
Unless, of course, you are making the case for a universal method?
We expect methods to be adapted and integrated (but hopefully not compromised). We keep the originals intact so people can check. That is not the point - you seemed to be arguing for a need for local interpretors/simplifiers with an implication that only then would they be pragmatic (see your first point). Apologies if I have it wrong but it is how I read it.
Now some adaption is good, but some is a bad compromise. We see this a lot in facilitation for example in that some people cannot hang back, they need to help people by suggesting solutions. In many of our methods that means you get no emergence and the outcome is just another bland consultancy exercise (with our brand attached). Hence the request for examples to understand what point you were making.
"you seemed to be arguing for a need for local interpretors/simplifiers with an implication that only then would they be pragmatic"
I think that you are inferring things that weren't intended. I don't want to get into discussing individual examples of CE methods because that's not what the post was about.
Its how it read Matt but happy to leave it and I do understand why you don't want to give any examples ...
An interesting viewpoint of how Australian organisations typically adapt and recreate rather than conceive of new, original, and thought provoking KM thinking.
We also have to consider that much of the thinking about KM is still largely from within KM.
Maybe we need to look more broadly, to other disciplines that do KM but don't realise it, in order to find our own KM champions.
M
Matthew - I don't think adaption & recreation are necessarily bad things (see the Thomas Barlow book mentioned). One thing that the likes of Dave Snowden do very well is melding different theories & approaches together.
And yes I agree that we need to look outside the narrow confines of the KM world...
Post a Comment