Rewinding to the actKM conference a couple of weeks ago, I want to pick apart a comment by Dave Snowden. In a public discussion, he stated that knowledge managers should focus on solving intractable problems.
I have two responses to this:
1. That's easy for you to say, Dave. To my knowledge, Dave has never held down a KM role inside an organisation (apologies if that's wrong) and his primary engagement with KM has been as a consultant. He gets to pick and choose "intractable problems" that he will work on. Most knowledge managers do not have that luxury but must try to sell innovative projects to a sceptical management while ensuring that things like the intranet are working.
2. As a provocation, an incitement to knowledge managers not to get pigeon-holed as document minders, it's a great one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Really not sure what point you are trying to make here Matt. I was asked how KM people made themselves relevant to senior decision makers. I advised that they should find the intractable problems that trouble those decision makers (I think I used the phrase "keep them asleep at nights") and demonstrate how KM tools and methods could assist in solving those problems.
Yes to have to satisfy the basics while you are doing that - as I did in multiple operational roles before I took up consultancy (and welcome to the ranks).
Thanks for commenting (& the welcome - is there a consultant's funny handshake I have to master?) It's a point that you have made on several occasions and it's struck me as being true but glib. I'd like to hear more advice that would help mere mortal knowledge managers get a shot at those "intractable problems". Some blog posts possibly?
No funny handshake Matt, but its generally considered impolite to call other people's comments "glib"
I am posting a series of blogs at the moment on management issues and there are two years of blogs and columns (see KM World) on practical ways to use social computing to take but one example.
Dave - I'm sorry, I had no idea that 'glib' was such an offensive term. What other terms are considered impolite?
The KM World articles are very interesting. And I'm looking forward to the case studies of where they've worked in practice (again apologies if I'm missing those).
Not offensive Matt, just impolite (its a mistake to confuse the two) and no need to apologise for missing things. I get the sense you are playing games here so will leave you to it.
Dave - Playing games?
About polite/impolite? Yes - mainly because I think you play the "polite" card when it suits you and ignore it when you don't.
About relevant case studies to support the KM World articles? Nope - perfectly serious on that one.
Matt, one of the things you may learn over time is that there are better ways to drum up business than innuendo and misquotation. I'm not sure what brought on this post of yours, I gave you a polite response to clarify my comment on the intractable problems issue. I'm going to leave it there.
Dave - I am not trying to "drum up business". I can't see anyone else being interested in this little exchange.
You didn't actually ask me to justify my position - you just labelled it "impolite". So let me ask you - why was it impolite?
Ironically the original post was actually pretty positive. It's shame you couldn't have gone with that.
I don't feel like posting on Cog Edge or yourself in the near future. Which is a real shame because I have a huge amount of respect for the work that you do and the creativity you bring to it.
It just doesn't seem to lead to fun - only debates in comments boxes that leave me feeling mean-minded and angry. Matt
*Matt takes the tennis ball and goes off in a huff*
Matt, I comment with a simple clarification and you say that my position is "glib"
I respond and you imply a lack of experiences or cases to support the ideas.
OK, its fair game, feel free if it helps but I don't understand the need to act like that, and I certainly don't understand why you are surprised when you get some push back.
From my point of view I'm not going off in a huff, you write well, your ideas are interesting, you are going to have disagreements with people from time to time including me. Better to enjoy the differences than avoid them.
Embrace diversity.
My neck is sore from watching this tennis match.
Cory
Cory - Yeah - there seem to be a fair number of double faults on both sides tho.
Dave - The case study request was a genuine one. The ideas in the articles are interesting - but would be more powerful if there are some cases behind them. I don't think that's unreasonable. Like I said earlier - I wasn't trying to score points with that one.
The "glib" comment was a little crude. However at it's root is a concern that the role you play in the KM world is a provoker. I'm uncertain if most people given the knowledge management role did all that you suggest they'd last very long in an organisation.
To go back the original point, in several presentations, podcasts, etc I recall you stating that knowledge managers should focus on intractable problems and move away from documents, CoPs, etc. And my response to that is "yes but" - the lived experience of most knowledge managers is different to that. The statement has a bit of a (and I can see this one causing a major flare-up) "Let them eat cake" quality about it.
I'll blog on the issue of case studies as opposed to theory informed practice sometime next month Matt, its a more important point than can be handled in a comment and I wouldn't like to give you a glib response to a serious issue.
We encourage people in CE to publish case studies when they use methods and you will see the on the web site when people do. More would be appreciated but getting people to write things up seems less important to them then going our there and doing things (one of the issues faced by KM over the years)
That said past practice while useful contains dangers; correlation/causation issues and recipe based practice do more harm than good (which is not to say that cases are not useful see above comment) but the faster the moving the area the more you shift away from "this worked for other people" to "this may work for us". In effect from fail-safe to safe-fail. The great thing about web 2.0 is that it allows that.
As to the rest, the question for me and the sole nature of my original comment was the response to the question "How do KM people make themselves relevant to decision makers?" The focus on intractable problems is an answer to that question, it does not entail any suggestion that other activity should cease. However if all the KM manager does if CoP and content management then their lived experience will be nasty, brutish and short. I think you confuse saying that something should be a minor or hygiene aspect of someone's work with saying that said thing should not be done. Bounded diversity (you will find a lot of that in the podcasts) says that different things work, within boundaries, but not beyond those boundaries.
Dave - OK I'll wait for the blog post re: case studies. But being something of an empiricist I believe that theories must be tested. Our theories of the world (esp. human behaviour) are always partial and incomplete. There's a big difference between saying "I think this will work" and "I've tried this and it has or it hasn't". N.B. Case studies in and of themselves do not lead to replicability because of context (which I'm guessing will be part of the forthcoming post).
N.B. If you don't actually have case studies for the KM World articles then that's not necessarily a problem but couldn't we have got to this point earlier?
Re: "How do KM people make themselves relevant to decision makers?" & intractable problems. Without wishing to put words in your mouth, there's some important qualifications there. Tackling an intractable problem is risky. And failing in this attempt can mean a swift exit. In my experience tending CoPs and content mgt doesn't necessarily mean that you are out the door - it's just really, really dull.
Now a blog post series on intractable problem finding and getting the exec buy-in to have a shot at those projects - that would be good...
Theory informed practice does not mean that things are not empirically verified Matt. We need to deal with fine granularity interventions (and some that will conflict with each other). The essence of a complex system is that something which works for you may not work for me as the context has shifted. By shifting from cases based fail safe approaches (coarse granularity) to safe-fail theory/practice informed experiments (fine granularity) we reduce risk significantly and allow our case to emerge.
The KM world articles are solidly based on practice within my network(try not to jump to conclusions), i.e. all elements proposed have worked but the synthesis will be unique in each situation. Some of the syntheses may have been written up by practitioners in the network (I never push them to) in which case they will be on the web site. So I am afraid the place you got to is not the correct one!
On intractable problems I am afraid I disagree with you on grounds both of theory and experience. Intractable problems are those where traditional methods and approaches have failed and its not to difficult to gain traction with a novel or new technique. Tending CoPs and managing content as you say is dull, but it ends up as a slow death as KM becomes increasingly irrelevant or a minor sub-section of IT. If you want to be strategic then you have to tackle the intractables.
The KM world articles are solidly based on practice within my network(try not to jump to conclusions), i.e. all elements proposed have worked but the synthesis will be unique in each situation. Some of the syntheses may have been written up by practitioners in the network (I never push them to) in which case they will be on the web site. So I am afraid the place you got to is not the correct one!
Dave - Which of the 8 case studies on the Cog Edge site are relevant to the KM World articles?
Not all strategy is about intractability, surely?
Sensible question Patrick - of course not all strategy is intractable, but a lot is and if you want to make a difference that is the area to address. Especially if you are a "non-strategic" function like KM attempting to make a name for itself.
Matt, I thought I had made myself clear, evidently not
- all the KM journal material is based on actual practice in all its components, and is informed by and consistent with complexity theory
- we don't write up case studies, we create methods for practitioners to use (based on theory and practice) and make those available without charge although we encourage training
- we don't require practitioners to write up case studies although we have just started to encourage it by creating a space for them to do so. A lot of methods with active practice histories do not have case studies and the space is a new one so expect more over time. I have no idea what they cover as I have not read them. I stay in regular contact with active members of the network so I have a pretty good idea of what is going on through blogs, skype, twitter etc. which I find more useful. (a lesson that KM people might want to learn)
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. I will to use Wiki terms assume good faith in this line of enquiry
I don't really want to waken sleeping dogs, but calling a consultant 'glib' is not impolite, it is extremely rude. Comparable to telling a CMM level 4 organisation they are hackers. If you didn't know that when you wrote it, then perhaps consultancy isn't for you.
Doing boring stuff that doesn't make much of a difference might be very comfortable, but tackling strategic problems is probably what is needed.
BrianSJ - Morning! So I am not allowed to call consultants "glib"? Does this mean that consultants aren't ever glib or that one shouldn't call them that? What is the socially acceptable term to replace glib? Leave to one side whether Dave's position (or mine for that matter) is glib or not. Help me out here with this NewSpeak consulting lingo.
N.B. A CMM 4 org might contain more than a few hackers (who may indeed proudly wear that label on their chests).
I've just had a brilliant idea. I promise never to say anything negative about another consultant (or even human being - they're almost the same) IF Dave S promises to do the same. The first person to break the vow has to pay US$200 to a charity of the other's choosing.
Everyone's a winner!!!
Brian - I think if you took away all the boring stuff you'd find it made a very big difference. In fact you wouldn't have any context to make any exciting strategic decisions.
You woke the sleeping dogs, but I have always preferred cats, they walk by themselves and all places are alike unto them.
Post a Comment