Disqus - Latest Comments for nickmilton

Re: Content Catalysts

nickmilton — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:09 -0000

The thoughts sparked here turned into this blog post about the four facilitative roles of Knowledge Management

http://www.nickmilton.com/2...

One of these is similar to your "content catalyst" role.

Re: Content Catalysts

nickmilton — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:18:19 -0000

Mary, you ask "I'd like to learn more about your definition of content...... Provided the communication is recorded in some fashion (whether in writing or on videotape, for example), then we have content. Under this scheme, it would be possible for a face to face knowledge transfer to produce content".

Yes, that's my definition of content as well. Some sort of record, which can be stored.

However it is equally possible for a face to face knowledge transfer NOT to create content, but still to transfer knowledge; and as you say in another comment, "those passing points of contact can have an enormous impact". They can have even more impact if they are strategic and routine.

To my mind, knowledge management encompasses the whole range of knowledge transfer, whether content is produced or not. Now in the legal field, knowledge and content have historically been more closely linked than in fields such as (for example) sales, or geophysics, or talent management. Legal knowledge has often been transferred in the form of annotated examples, or other documents, and legal KM is traditionally content-focused. But this is not the case in all professions.

So I would not personally take a content-centric view of KM, and I would not divide the world into content creators and content managers. I think if anything I would start with knowledge providers and knowledge users, and then look at whether the exchange between the two needs to involve the creation of content.

This comment is at risk of becoming an essay, so I will turn it into a blog post instead!

Re: Catalog Content Not People

nickmilton — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 03:27:30 -0000

Good post - well said!

Re: Content Catalysts

nickmilton — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:26:35 -0000

Thanks Rick. Yes I know Kent, he was my line manager for nearly 3 years.

Re: Content Catalysts

nickmilton — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:19:30 -0000

Sorry - one more thought! (there needs to be a word for those thoughts you get after you press the "submit" button)

If you have a role that focuses on "connecting people to people and facilitating their ability to make sense of their collective information/knowledge", then "content catalyst" is probably not the best term.

A lot of knowledge sharing is tacit, and never creates "content". Peer assists, After Action reviews, coaching discussions, many of the face to face means of knowledge transfer that happen when people are connected to people, will never create content. The orginal Polyani definition of tacit knowledge (which is what is so often shared between people) is that which cannot be expressed, and therefore never can become content.

I would he happier to call this role "connection catalyst" or even "knowledge transfer catalyst" (although I see the role as one of many roles of the knowledge manager), but to my mind, calling it "content catalyst" presupposes a content-centric view. And to be honest, content is not what we are after. Content is not the end point. We are ultimately after knowledge transfer and reuse, and content is only one means to get there.

I don't mean this comment to sound negative; what I am trying to do is explore and clarify the ground between KM and content management, and terminology is important here!

Re: Content Catalysts

nickmilton — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:44:54 -0000

Hi Mary,

Thanks for the post and for the reference! Always welcome!!

As far as I am concerned, "connecting people to people and facilitating their ability to make sense of their collective information/knowledge" has always been the primary goal of Knowledge Management and of Knowledge Managers. It certainly was a primary goal for our KM program in BP in the 90s

However connecting needs to be balanced with collecting - I dont think you can isolate the two (see here http://www.nickmilton.com/2....

Connection without Collection is ephemeral, Collection without Connection is lifeless. Therefore I would be unwilling either to ignore the disputed territory, or fragment the field further.

Therefore I would be unwilling to ignore the disputed territory, or fragment the field further by creating new names for components. I would rather integrate than separate - see below for more explanation.

http://www.nickmilton.com/2...
http://www.nickmilton.com/2...

Re: Implementing Enterpise 2.0 at Vistaprint Part Three: Operational Impact

nickmilton — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:25:18 -0000

"Ninety-five percent of the effort came from people, process, training, adoption, and roll out and only 5% from technology"

That's good to hear. Can you tell me how this was measured? Is that a breakdown by budget spend, for example? Or timewriting of training time vs installation time?

Also, its very heartening to hear that "over 20% of the company has submitted a unique idea." Do you have any stats for what percentage of these ideas were taken up and used by others? And what the business benefit has been as a result?

Thanks in advance

Re: KM Requires Luck

nickmilton — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:00:37 -0000

"Luck is where preparation meets opportunity" (Seneca)

Re: Using Technology to Manage Costs

nickmilton — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:26:08 -0000

Perhaps we should also think about using improved process to manage costs.

Managing costs of production has been the KM focus for very many industries - automotive, oil and gas, manufacturing. Methods to address these costs have not been purely technological. Simple processes such as After Action reviews, Peer Assists, Quality Circles, Lean manufacturing and the like have been very effective in reducing internal production costs. Shell's Technical Limit approach regularly reduces drilling costs by 40%, for example.

Perhaps now is the time for a rethink of KM in legal firms, focusing not just on technology, but also on process, and on roles and accountabilities.

Re: Do Generational Differences Matter? (ILTA09)

nickmilton — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 05:00:30 -0000

You can find some data regarding generational differences on my blog here http://www.nickmilton.com/2... and these data seem to suggest there is minimal difference between the generations when it comes to attitudes towards knowledge seeking and knowledge sharing

Re: What Do Your Searches Disclose About Your Work?

nickmilton — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:05:09 -0000

Good question, Mary. We tried just this approach of analysing queries in a big community of practice recently. The queries to the forum were already characterised topics because when you submit a search to this particular community of practice you have to choose which topic it is related to.

We divided the topics into four quadrants;

1. Few questions, lots of answers. These tended to be areas of common knowledge, where most people knew the answer and only a few new people did not. For these topics, as we could write guidelines or faqs
2. Lots of questions, lots of answers. These were the important and evolving Knowledge topics where it was worth while setting up community meetings so that we can start to exchange and document best practice.
3. Lots of questions, few answers. These were the problem areas, where some more research or action learning was needed to start to develop solutions.
4. Few questions, few answers. Our assumption was that these are not particularly important areas, but that it was worth watching them in case they developed into problem areas.

This was a very useful analysis and led to a greater understanding of the important evolving and problem topics within the community.

Re: Is Your Organization Learning Faster Than Your Competitors?

nickmilton — Sat, 23 May 2009 06:26:06 -0000

Good post Michael, thanks, though BP (and I believe Buckman Labs as well) have moved on since the days reported in the studies you quote. For a newer look at BP, try here <<ed.: hyperlink="" no="" longer="" worked="">>

Re: Behaving Badly

nickmilton — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:47:08 -0000

We frame the conversation around value, or around risk. ROI may be a challenge, but its not insurmountable, and you should have enough data to demonstrate that the returns from KM, in terms of business won or costs reduced, far outweigh the investment. If you don't have the data, run a couple of business-focused pilots to get some data, before you close the conversation.

Or else frame the conversation around risk. One company I know turned to KM when one of their key international clients found the same mistake in delivery in three separate countries, and suggested that they would move their business elsewhere if they found a fourth example.

Also I completely disagree that "the ones who need the knowledge systems the most work on the front lines". One of the most valuable pieces of work we did in BP was at senior management level, taking the lessons from the Amoco merger and applying them to the Arco acquisition. There we were working with the CFO, the chief counsel, one of the VPs - very senior level. The biggest decisions are made at the highest level, and there the need for knowledge is greatest. Try applying KM to mergers, acquisitions, divestments, integrations etc.

One of my clients likened their senior-level approach to "KM removing the thorn from the lion's claw". If you do that, the lion will always be on your side.

Re: Behaving Badly

nickmilton — Wed, 13 May 2009 11:29:51 -0000

Exactly. People are too busy for "nice to have".

The onus therefore lies on the KM professionals to make the business case to management that KM is not a "nice to have", it's a "must have".

The case has been made for safety (in the construction areas), for diversity and inclusion, for all sorts of management focus areas. We need to have the same conversation with senior management, but this time with knowledge as the focus.

Re: Behaving Badly

nickmilton — Wed, 13 May 2009 09:34:47 -0000

I think the implication when designing knowledge management systems is much the same as when designing financial management systems or timewriting systems. You make the company expectations very clear, link them with the reward system, and monitor them.

Most people could not care less about doing budgets or timewriting and would rather not bother if they could get away with it. They know its important, but they just like to do the professional work. However the company knows KM, budgeting, timewriting etc are vital, makes it clear what's expected, rewards you for compliance and disapproves of non-compliance, and knows when you are not complying.

That's the governance angle. After a while, people start to realise that KM IS part of the job, and it becomes a habit, just like timewriting.

Re: Behaving Badly

nickmilton — Wed, 13 May 2009 06:14:11 -0000

Good article.

My empirical experience has been that about 1 person in 5 will willingly comply with knowledge management expectations out of a belief in their value, about 1 person in 5 will deliberately not comply with knowledge management expectations out of a belief that they have no value, and the remaining 3 don't care one way or another. The proportions shift depending how busy people are.

Hence, if KM is important to the firm, the need for governance.

Re: The KM Solution?

nickmilton — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:32:52 -0000

I so agree!

I am not sure whether they really think it is a KM solution (naievity on their part), or whether they think it will sell better if they call it a KM solution (naievity on the part of the market).

I suspect the latter