Talk:Knowledge management/Archive 4

Archiving old discussions per user request. Most recent discussions can be found at Talk:Knowledge management

(An Old) Summary and proposal

• While journals and other publications have various practices for capitalization of article headings, our article does not conform to the Wikipedia MoS on Article titles, which is to capitalize only the first word of a title or heading.
• Regarding body text, most journals and other sources listed above use lower case for the term "knowledge management."
• The Wikipedia MoS guideline on capitalization is to capitalize proper names, acronyms, and initialisms, only, in body text.

I propose that we now align this article with the MoS and drop the capitalization of "knowledge management," except in titles (e.g., of journals or forums). Would anyone who disagrees with this proposal please indicate their reasons (with appropriate references) here by May 1, 2008? Sunray (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)\

I disagree on the grounds that the name for the field is a capitalised in practice and it is, in this context a proper name. I can't get worked up about it however but I do think you should allow others to contribute before jumping to a conclusion. --Snowded (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)--Snowded (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree. It has been a fairly standard practice to capitalize Knowledge Management. It is, of course, the practitioners and promoters who capitalize it - so I may easily be biased. Jackvinson (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Count me in for disagreement. Depending on the context it's being used in, KM is often used as a proper noun, and therefore it's capitalized. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've shown that it is used in non-capitalized form in a wide variety (and I suspect the majority) of business publications. I've also quoted the style guidelines. No one has presented any references or other information that justify maintaining the article in its present form. Would someone please do so now? Sunray (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are getting some expert opinion from practitioners and academics here Sunray, people who know the field. If its a Proper Noun (or used in context as such) it does not break the style guidelines. The convention for the field is capitalised - look at journal titles, conferences (academic and practitioner), God I speak at most of them. You are not getting support and we have been here before. I'll have a look at some books and journals when I get home (as previously advised) but this is really not a big issue. --Snowded (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned, I disagree as well. I capitalize when using the term as a proper noun "Researchers in the field of Knowledge Management often ..." as opposed to "The new system was designed to assist in knowledge management". - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point, Bilby. However, using the term as a proper noun is somewhat problematic, other than in limited cases, such as the one you have referenced. Sunray (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Well, we are all experts at something around here. It may not have occurred to Snowded to wonder what particular expertise I contribute: I am an editor. I make articles better. And I've edited many business publications. So if we could agree on square one (which you have admitted is really not a big issue), I would be willing to work on improving this "start class" article. If not, that's fine too. ;-) Sunray (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on improving this argument for over a year Sunray and I judge it by its ability to represent the field - which includes the fact that Knowledge Management is considered a proper noun. I think the clear agreement is leave as is. More editors would obviously be appreciated. --Snowded (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Argument? Did you mean to say "article?" The invariant use of the term as a proper noun is problematic, IMO. Check what Bilby is saying, and my response to him, above. The closest example I can think of would be expressions like "scientific management." There aren't many business articles that have reached FA status, but take a look at Mercantilism. Sunray (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I meant to say article - thanks for the correction. I like what Bilby says, it supports keeping things as they are and today you are the only dissenting voice --Snowded (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. To characterize this as a "poll" with one person as a dissenting voice is not what I see happening. I pointed out an error in the article and a contravention of WP:MoS. This has been documented in considerable detail. Through it all, I asked you for sources to support your view. Various times you have said "I will consult my journals and provide examples" (or words to that effect). This you have not done, and neither has anyone else. Bilby, suggested a way in which "Knowledge Management" could be used as a proper noun. I agreed with him, but pointed out that such a use would be relatively infrequent.

On the other hand, I have given examples of reputable journals (including HBR) which show that "knowledge management" is invariably written in lower case. Thus, no evidence has been brought forward that suggests any deviation from the MoS, except in the limited case Bilby has suggested (i.e. "the field of Knowledge Management"). Sunray (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No one has argued that lower case is used frequently in journals, the point several of us have made is that when we are talking about the field the clear convention is to capitalise. Looking at KMRP, the JKM and a shelf full of books, three EU reports and other material that convention is present. This article is about the field. Now you could argue that the words in the body of the text should be lower case, while the title remains capitalised. That way the whole thing would conform. How about that as a compromise? To be honest on all the pages I edit I am concerned about the content. I know that there are a whole group of editors who have strong views on conventions being applied and their focus is thus on form. Within limits this is very useful, part of the rich diversity that is the WIkipedia. However it can at times be carried to excess. --Snowded (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to imply that content was not important. It is, of course, crucial. I very much appreciate your willingness to compromise. However, I just don't think that capitalizing the title would get us very far. Unlike journals, WP does not capitalize titles, other than the first word. So are we stuck again? Sunray (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia capitalises proper nouns and that is what is being debated. In this field KM is a proper noun when describing the field. I've offered a compromise, not sure what else I can do. --Snowded (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How does knowledge management differ from [[Project management}}? Sunray (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For one thing it is used as a proper noun for a specific field of study and application that really started in the 1900s, rather than being a generic capability. There is no consistent practice here. Spiral Dynamics capitalises (and has been redirected from Spiral dynamics) as does TQM, Six Sigma and others. Learning organisation does not. I think you should stop seeking out a universal and accept the opinion of content focused editors as to what is appropriate based on common practice in the field. --Snowded (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The universal here is an encyclopedia. There are policies and guidelines as to how we organize information. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ignore rules if there is good reason to. So let's look at your examples. Would you be able to provide links to illustrate the points you wish to make? Sunray (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

and the policy and guidelines allow capitalisation for proper nouns. You have got evidence here you just don't want to accept it and you are in minority of one against people with knowledge of the field and normal usage. The convention is clearly to describe the field with capitals, but to use lower case in the main within the body of articles. It may not make sense, but then a lot of things which have evolved over time don't. I suggested a perfectly sensible compromise earlier. Can I suggest you accept it? --Snowded (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Project management article, you will note that it does exactly what you are suggesting. It starts out "Project Management is the discipline..." I'm fine with that. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are happy with it, the name of the page is management not Management. Its one example there are others. The proposed compromise is to leave the name as it is (you have to accept that the majority of editors here think it is a proper noun) but in the text use lower case. I think you are arguing style over content here and we are going round in circles. No new arguments, not new players, majority votes status quo. Its over. --Snowded (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"It's one example there are others." Would you please cite examples of good articles or featured articles that we could use as a reference for capitalization of both words for a similar term in a article title? Sunray (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read cited other examples read back through the history 18:43, 10 May 2008 is the latest. You are adding a qualification to say that you want the authority to be good or featured, well that is your hang up. There are two arguments here (i) normal use in the field and (ii) other examples. The former is the stronger argument and there I think we have established proper noun status. As I said this is over, you are gaining no support and just repeating the same arguments. --Snowded (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear. When I say "cite" I mean provide an internal link, such as Project management, or an external link in this format [1]. Merely saying something is so doesn't cut it. Cite your evidence, please. BTW I asked for examples from GAs or FAs to make a point. There are many substandard WP articles (alas). However, any good examples will do. Sunray (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You persistently and perversely miss the point. Lower case is common in the next of articles, Upper Case for the field (I cited two of the main journals here where I am on the editorial board). I also check the major text books (Prusak and Davenport, Leonard etc) and they capitalise the field. You can go to a Library if you want - I am lucky enough to have the journals and the books at home. ou are defining a good article not by its content, but its conformance to YOUR interpretation of a Wiki standard. Sorry, unless you gain more support this is over. The subject matter experts who edit this page appear to be in agreement. --Snowded (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We are in agreement that lower case is common in the text of articles and I also agree that capitals can be used to refer to the field. Where we are not yet in alignment is on the capitalization of the title of the article. I've pointed out several examples of articles and have asked you for Wikipedia examples to support your point of view. To date you have provided none. Sunray (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read my earlier comments for examples of articles which capitalise --Snowded (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! I cannot continue this. You have provided no citations that anyone can check online. But, that is not the point, we do not need external references as to how Wikipedia does titles. I asked you for Wikipedia examples that support the use of capitals (for comparable terms) in the title. That is a very specific request. Would you be able to do that, now, please? Sunray (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! I have provided citations that people can check. In addition the content specialists are all agreed. You are in a minority of one, you have no background in the subject, but you are engaged in a crusade on a minor matter of form. I have previously given examples from Wikipedia entries on approach to management which use capitalisation (although I dare say you will leap into move them as you did KM). If you cannot be bothered to read material I am not going to repeat it. If you want to help improve the article please do so, but please stop this petty pursuit of a trivial issue. I have two major papers overdue on this subject and three to referee. My time would be better spent working on them. --Snowded (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You assume (wrongly) that I have no relevant background. However, that is beside the point. I note that you are either unwilling or unable to provide the online citations I requested. You have papers to write and I also have better things to do. Sayonara. Sunray (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge Management…Communities of Practice…Is there another name?

Please note these are not my thoughts, but rather I am cut-and-pasting the narrative posted by Special:Contributions/Mdwhorley here in case that user or others would like to improve this text into something that is less of a personal anecdote regarding KM and instead something appropriate for Wikipedia. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As the United States takes into consideration several impending and explosive realities, many have utilized new terms such as Knowledge Management and Communities of Practice to articulate what should have been an ongoing exercise. We realize Baby Boomers are preparing to exit stage left and we also realize that everything is cyber-something. We have cyber-space, cyber-security…we are cyber fanatic. However one thing is real, we will experience a critical gap in knowledge transfer if we don’t employ knowledge management immediately. Many organizations, including mine, have come to that realization and are hoping that we/they have not waited too late to implement cost effective, cutting edge ideas that will ensure we bridge the knowledge gap before it is too late. We don’t want to end up reinventing a wheel that will be obsolete before it is even built.

I was fortunate to be able to listen to a presentation by staff from the Defense Acquisition University (DAU). They have researched to challenges faced in managing knowledge and are prepared to partner with agencies and organizations to make sure that the knowledge doesn’t walk out of the door with the individual and if it does…we have a plan.

DAU utilizes “Life Cycle Logistics (Community of Practice)” to capture the intricate knowledge needed to sustain the organization during a finite period of time. While I believe there are many questions that need to be answered, I also believe it is a workable tool once the questions are answered to the satisfaction of the user.

The ultimate goal of this process is to ensure that “experts” once they have retired are available to answer questions that others within the organization may lack the knowledge to answer. The process is to hire these experts specifically for the knowledge they took with them into retirement. The idea is to have a computer based interactive system that will be accessed by the expert and the end-user. If a questions surfaces during the day-to-day work life of the employee that they can not answer, they will be able to access a database….type in the question….and wait for an answer. It’s not as easy as it sounds. At this point in the process, it may not be an immediate answer therefore it will not be the most preferential of systems if you need an immediate answer. But for complex issues that require extensive knowledge and perhaps research, delving into the mind of the expert that already has the answer can be rewarding and extremely productive.

Some of the questions that surfaced are the reliability of the information given, who retains the ultimate accountability for a wrong answer, and when is the expert no longer an expert? What it the shelf life of the expert? Another major consideration is do we need a “Communities of Practice” if organizations employ their own method of capturing the knowledge before it leaves the organization.

We have read so many KM cycles presented by Kimiz Dalkir, that I wonder why anyone isn’t employing the best KM cycle for their organization now rather than waiting for the inevitable. As I read through and studied knowledge capture and codification, and of course depending upon whether it was tacit knowledge or explicit knowledge, I am convinced that we are making this situation much more difficult than it should be. First of all, if we simply employ succession planning and hire the requisite employees for the task at hand, continue to train as we go, why would we end up in a knowledge deficit situation? It must be easier said that done because we are where we are. However, I submit to the reader that if we start now (we can’t change the past) by hiring the right person, at the right time, for the right position; mandate teaming and partnering; value our human resource; reward exceptional output…knowledge management will follow.

American versus British spelling

Please dont change the spelling back and forth. Since the subject is international, if the article was started with UK spelling then it should continue that way. DGG (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was created in August of 2002[2] with the American spellings and remained that way until around January of 2006[3] when Engish varients started to creep in.

Probably because most of the work in the last couple of years has been done by UK and Australian authors. Whatever what is the problem? --Snowded (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, then why did you make this argument [4] to retain the original spelling when this original discussion first came up? Everyone then agreed that the orginal spellings should be used (as WP:ENGVAR states), but it was assumed that it was British, which I've shown is incorrect. The American spellings were used for the first four years of this articles existance. In your own words, I ask you, "what is the problem?"

Its been English spelling as long as I have been involved it, come and spend some time improving the page and earn the right to worry about petty issues like this. I haven't checked your statement about the origins by the way so I don't necessarily concede the point --Snowded (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

and please sign your comments --Snowded (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, why hasn't the spelling been changed? You've had plenty of time to check my statement and concede that I'm right. 76.224.9.18 (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

see above --Snowded TALK 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is some unvoiced dispute between using "organizational" versus "organisational". A couple of guidelines apply:

• Retaining the existing variety
• Consistency within articles

It seems this article has used the british version for quite a long time, so it should continue to do so, consistently. Karbinski (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

the sad thing about this discussion is that the correct British English spelling is of course organization - the first use of this spelling being used in 1664 (OED). There are some records of the 's' variant in Middle French towards the latter part of the 14th Century but this doesn't seem to show up in English until 1882 - so the debate has been around for quite a long time. I could give an anecdotal account of how the English government used 's' instead of 'z' towards the end of last century and how that then cascaded around but someone would follow it with a {fact} tag. If you don't have access to OED try typing organise into www.cambridge.org. com. (or Dave you may prefer typing 'trefniadaeth' into www.geiriadur.net). Sam Jonson also concurs. Emergent spelling - spelling 2.0 (sic) Still I agree that the Wiki guideline of retaining the existing variety should prevail - and if adopted more widely may stop the (d)evolution of proper English (sic) even further. The consistency idea doesn't work if you are quoting the titles of publications from both sides of the pond. johnmark†talk to me 21:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material by Snowded

The purpose of this article is report on Knowledge Mangement from reliable verifiable sources. The material reverted out is some of the *only* material with a citation. Karbinski (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No general user has any idea of who's ideas this article is currently being promoted, given that, actually having a source is hardly disqualification for being included in the article. Karbinski (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Any book on knowledge management could have material copied and inserted into this article with a "citation" but it also has to be notable. In practice this article needs radical revision and simplification (including citation). It is also subject to a lot of editing to self-promote individual articles and books. If you think the material is notable within the field please elaborate the reasons here. --Snowded TALK 18:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No such policy or guideline exists. The source has to be verifiable and reliable. The publisher of Stankosky's 2005 book is the same publisher, as is true of several "further reading" titles. The publisher is cleary reputable and the book is a secondary source which includes its references for each chapter. The burden of proof for restoration is met (verifiable and reliable). Karbinski (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable, perhaps, but you have not given reasons for reliable?Kingofwine (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"The publisher of Stankosky's 2005 book is the same publisher, as is true of several "further reading" titles. The publisher is cleary reputable and the book is a secondary source which includes its references for each chapter." Karbinski (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Or notable for that mattern--Snowded TALK 02:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

no such policy or guideline exists Karbinski (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The text for roles used to replace this material is more uncited text. This is *not* what this particular article needs, it needs cited reporting. Karbinski (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the list overlaps with a lot of other sources, but seems to contain some novel roles. It seems the content is not NPOV. The sad reality is that is more than can be said for the rest of the article: in other words, There was a source that could be checked out, most of the remaining article 'content' can be removed as OR. Karbinski (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing self-aggrandizing unsourced material

WP:BURDEN requires content be verifiable by a reliable source. Removing uncited material naming a regular editor of the article. Karbinski (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who want to know what is going on here Karbinski is very unhappy that I and others are blocking his attempt to have objectivism defined by the theories of Ayn Rand of whom he is a supporter. The discussion is going on here and follows attempts by the said author to impose Rand's definition of Philosophy on the Philosophy article. Karbinski is a supporter of Rand - see here not to mention "nuke Iran now" and the whole conversation here.

Fairly obviously he feels that I have some ownership of this article and intends to, in effect get revenge, or possibly try and encourage me to leave him alone on his favourite pages. As it happens I don't think this article is that important or very good. I and others did some work to knock it into shape over a year ago but its not a good article, needs as the citation says additional work and citations. Yes the schools of thought section mentions my work on complexity and narrative in the field, but that is hardly self aggrandisement when it is mentioned only briefly and supported by articles in reading list and also by a two Academy of Management awards. The text of the schools of thought was negotiated some time ago by people with knowledge of the field. If you delete that section, then consistently you have to delete most of the article as nearly everything in it is uncited. I suggest other editors get involved and decide what they want to do with this, I have limited energy to play juvenile games with extremists

Removal of a section that alledgedly lists schools of thought, where some list items merely describe instead of name supposed 'schools of thought', with *zero* citations, is not a radical change. See WP:PROVEIT. Why this section when the entire article is vulnerable to OR challenge? It seems to me that existent schools of thought should be the most readily sourcable material from any number of the sources extensively listed at the bottom of the article. Karbinski (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy yourselves

I cam on to this page a year or so at the request of others as a subject matter expert. In that time no group of editors have emerged who want to put the effort into improving the article. During that period every person who publishes an article immediately places it as a reference and places extracts in the article for promotional purposes. We now have Karbinski playing "frustration games" with inconsistent edits. If you delete the schools piece, then most of the rest of the article should go as well. If an when a group of editors emerge with some knowledge of the subject prepared to put the work in then I may start to bother with it again. For the moment I will keep it on watch but its not worth the energy to play games with people not interesting in the subject per se. --Snowded TALK 01:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I have started to look at this but the learning curve seems steep. Its just taken me an hour or so to figure out how basically the citations work. Can't promise to be an active contributor/editor but will try to make some time. Dgurteen —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

I can help with citation formatting and similar. I'll help with the article where I can, but I haven't touched it much to date, as while my thesis and research is in this area, it is focused on theoretical underpinnings, rather than practice. But I'll also do what I can to assist. It never made sense that one of the must public KM systems (of sorts) doesn't also have a really good KM article. - Bilby (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia says Be Bold

Greetings to all! As an academic well-versed with KM, I'd like to help contribute. Wading through all the comments here, I can see there have been some passionate discussions from several folks. Hopefully we can work together in good faith to clean this article. Wikipedia says Be Bold, so I'm going to take that to heart, but if you disagree with my edits feel free to make revisions or comment. I would like to strive for: (1) accepting as many contributions as possible to KM, while at the same time (2) avoiding it becoming a soapbox for any one viewpoint or propoganda for consulting agencies. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Another note, this article is long. When I arrived, it was > 47kb, and I believe (and could be wrong) that Wikipedia strives for articles less than 32kb. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article looks great! Karbinski (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is structured article. Easy to comprehend.--As99 (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a tagcloud generated from the URL of the Knowledge management article; shows which words are repeated the most often (and thus which ones, if ambiguous to new readers or potentially jargon-related terms, we should define) ...
http://www.tocloud.com/keywordcloud.do?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKnowledge_management&txt=&t=&s=a&i=g&mc=&wc=&ef=&sw=&url2= ... signed by Harvey the rabbit (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Constructionism School of Thought

Currently the link is to a disambiguation page. There are at least two articles that address learning theory, is this deliberate or are we able to use a more specific link? Karbinski (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should let the disambiguation page allow the reader to decide? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I for one have no idea which article(s) if any relate(s) to Knowledge Management (within the context of being a school of thought). Karbinski (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably for KM, most researchers would suggest that either Social_constructionism or Constructivism_(learning_theory) represented the relevant ideas re: constructivist approaches to KM; some might also suggest Constructivist_epistemology ... so we could link directly to one of them if there was agreement; but I'm not sure there is?  :-) Harvey the rabbit (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In so far as some academics interested in KM are social constuctivists then you might argue that there is a constructivist school, there also some practitioners playing withe the word "constuctionist" but I don't see much understanding of the implications. There is a clear critical realist school with links to Popper which is a distinctive group with more presence. Equally narrative approaches are stronger than constructivist approaches although there is some overlap. --Snowded TALK 03:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To avoid confusing readers, I'll de-link it. If mutiple articles are relevant, perhaps a paranthesized list? As well, Snowded's language - "you might argue" - seems to suggest its not a settled matter that "Constructivist" is a school of KM thought (that doesn't mean its inclusion is non-NPOV, but it does raise the question). Karbinski (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Constructivism is a school of thought applicable to KM, it's more that constructivism has a hard time (in part due to its own approach to science) arriving at a single definition :-) Harvey the rabbit (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What Should We Do About Category:Knowledge_management_journals ... ?

These seem to have become orphaned and are rarely updated; some seem to be adverts for the journals. Does Category:Knowledge_management_journals provide value to Wikipedia? Could these journal entries be improved/expanded? Or should something else be done with them? Deleted/revised/merged/etc. ... ? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there are two popular ones (in English) and several academic (I am on the editorial boards of three of those so know about them but there are more). I would suggest limiting it to refereed academic and popular ones with a reasonable circulation. --Snowded TALK 03:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Bunk

Why doesn't this article mention that many academic critics of knowledge management think it's bunk and just snake oil version of information management (plus the problems with concepts of trying to manage knowledge - an impossible task). --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of it conforms to that description Cameron, some doesn't. Find some of the criticism and enter it (properly cited). Of course many a practitioner would argue that academics came to the field late and are partly responsible for perpetrating the snake oil approach. A lot of KM is IM, but not all, and your statement that managing knowledge is an impossible task either involves a very narrow definition of what it means to manage something or would require us to close down all Universities. --Snowded TALK 12:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really you can create an environment where people 'generate' knowledge but all those people can pass onto others is information that they internalise and use to generate their own "knowledge" but all the systems and processes can manage is the "signal" the information that passes between them, it cannot capture their knowledge or pass it on to others. It's information management that occurs. Anyway - this isn't a talkforum so I'm not going to get into it in detail! ;-) I'll build up a critism section off-line, source it to the academic literature and then slot it in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Its rather quaint to find someone still advocating the "all that passes is information" argument. Will wait to see the sourced section - remember its not just having comments sourced but you have to show NPOV --Snowded TALK 06:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For my two cents (for what it's worth), differing views welcomed if you can demonstrate their cited from more than one source and subscribe to a NPOV Harvey the rabbit (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are, provided they are indicated as differing views and don't make a claim for the field as a whole. --Snowded TALK 08:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of references

I know there have been some problems with spam, mindless vandalism and grammatical pedantry, but I have just made a quick pass thorough some of the reference sources in this article.

Some seem fine but others only appear to have a passing acquaintance with the topic they claim to be a source of authority for. Take ref 30 for example, what does that have to say about, whether KM is more than a passing fad, or, whether more research will help to create consensus on what elements of KM help determine the success or failure of projects?

If I have the time, I would like to prune out some of the old references and possibly plant a few new ones. But before I even start to think about it too seriously, does anybody else have strong opinions about this?

Compo (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

PLease do, and the articles need radical pruning to notable ones --Snowded TALK 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you discuss the reference you want to remove and why on this talk page *first* -- so we don't get into edit wars where someone supports a reference and someone else doesn't. Agree though, some of these were legacy references that might not be the best; however in the spirit of keeping something of a peace and avoiding an edit war, please discuss what you think should be removed and/or replace first. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will find a block of time ane settle down to it in the next week or so - suggested changes will be posted here first. Compo (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make a contribution - while researching my thesis I needed to cover knowledge management and the related sub-topics. Therefore I have excellent references (Harvard) and would like you to have a look at it. How can I get it to you?Judi N Sandrock (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Judi, nice to see you here. You might want to create a subpage here and post your proposals. --Snowded (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings to both Judi N Sandrock and Compo, contributions welcomed and Snowded's idea is a good one, you can use a subpage to post some of the references you've pulled together; I have some too from my old research notes, just need to take the time to transfer them here... which at the moment, given where I am and work, etc., won't happen for a while :-) ... best regards, Harvey the rabbit (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

An anonymous user recently posted the following... I'm cut-and-pasting it here so it can be worked on before returning it to the main article. My concerns are two-fold: (1) this represents original research, and (2) the poster did not work the references into the same style or format as the rest of the article... I would like to avoid a return the old article where anyone and everyone made inserts and it grew unwieldy; recommend we discuss new inserts or edits first as a group before adding to main article -- if folks agree with this? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC) text from the anonymous user below:

Codification Strategy

One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge. In such an instance, individuals strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a shared knowledge repository, such as a database, as well as retrieving knowledge they need that other individuals have provided to the repository .

Personalisation Strategy

This strategy to KM involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts associated with a particular subject on an ad hoc basis. In such an instance, expert individual(s) can provide their insights to the particular person or people needing this .

Socialisation Strategy

Socialisation is an instrument for the Organisation to transmit a CFR to each employee for them to act behalf of the organisation. Socialisation can be described as ”the process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organizational role’”(Van Maanen & Schein, 1979: 211)</ref>http://www.sam.sdu.dk/doc/events/alumne/kursusf04/bo.pdf</ref>.

Now all three strategies are complementary and therefore a codification and socialisation strategy combined will get rit of the weakness from only using a personalisation strategy and vise versa.Remember to see codification and personalisation strategies as contradictions to one another! </ref>http://www.sam.sdu.dk/doc/events/alumne/kursusf04/bo.pdf</ref>.

comment

I agree with your strategy, and the text above is clearly OR. Looks a past pattern of people taking material from lecture notes/conferences etc and just inserting it without references or criticism --Snowded TALK 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bibliographical references

I have started to code references using the Harvard format such as in: (Thompson & Walsham 2004), so as to make them easier to read Nabeth (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a prefered style, Harvard vs. inline references? For a while I thought inline references were all the rage, but are they now nothing but a passing fad? Wiki4fun (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITE goes through the options --Snowded (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise 2.0 (KM 2.0)

I have added a new term that has emerged in the last couple of years as the modern vision of knowledge management, in particular in relation to the Web 2.0 phenomenon. It is refered to as Enterprise 2.0 (or sometime KM 2.0) Nabeth (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Virtually everything has 2.0 these days, I have even seem KM3.0; its jargon I suggest getting rid of it --Snowded (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is indeed a debate whether Enterprise 2.0 is 'VaporThoughts'. Well, in my 'opinion' it is not. In particular, several papers have been written under this concept that belongs to the 'topic' Knowledge management. However what I would suggest if there is a discussion on this to indicate that the concept of Entreprise 2.0 is still not totally agree by everybody. The idea is to make people aware of this debate, so that they do not overlook materials (several KM articles and blog postings are done under Entreprise 2.0). Then in the future it will just be a matter of cleaning this term from Wikipedia.

Concerning KM 3.0 (well the more semantic KM). Well of course these are just terms that help to bring and anchor people attention. Of course nothing totally knew (for instance we have seen Ontology in KM for years). The real question with all these Buzzwords (but wasn't KM also a Buzzword at some point?) is if the introduction of new terms bring some value (clarification, attention, momentum, ....). Nabeth (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Of interest concerning the term Enterprise 2.0: In 1996, there has been a 'fight' in Wikipedia surrounding the proposed deletion of this term. Read more at: Karim R. Lakhani and Andrew P. McAfee, Case study on deleting "Enterprise 2.0" article, Courseware #9-607-712, Harvard Business School, 2007 (GFDL) Nabeth (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise 2.0 (and Web 2.0) disapearing

There seems to be again some hostility with entreprise 2.0 and the web 2.0. I have undone the latest deletion, since it was done by an anonymous user and without given reason (well, even if the I would not say that great content has been removed). Please, at least, provide a rational in the talk page when you erase something that other people could consider as useful content. Web 2.0 (and entreprise 2.0) have been connected to KM by some reputable people. You may legitimally disagree with these people, but in that case, why not to put an argument in the page, and explain why they were wrong. Erasing it from our memory is a loss of content.

Thanks. --Nabeth (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: Just looking again in the history, I have noticed that some original content was replaced by another content that I consider to be less useful (and that a user tried to delete).

Here is the original content

With the advent of web tools for social networking in the early 2000's (see Web 2.0), the concept of knowledge management has evolved towards a vision more based on people participation and emergence. This line of evolution is termed Enterprise 2.0 (McAfee 2006). However, there is still a debate (and discussions even in Wikipedia (Lakhani & McAfee 2007)) whether Enterprise 2.0 is just a fad, or if it brings something new, is the future of knowledge management (Davenport 2008) and is here to stay.

Here is the new content

The advent of new software tools for social networking (see Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0) have made it technologically easier for people to participate in more collaborative and cooperative work.(McAfee 2006)(Lakhani & McAfee 2007)(Davenport 2008).

--Nabeth (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd go back to the original --Snowded ^TALK 00:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The original content is indeed more factual and more neutral (not taking position whether it is good or not). I will wait a few days in the case there are other opinions and then I will make the change. --Nabeth (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see that the change has been done already. --Nabeth (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Weird reference/citation links in Beta

Hi. I am using the new Beta wikipedia. I am seing some weird reference/citation links. I think it is a template that was wrongly interpreted by mediaWiki or something. Here is an example (this is not in edit mode): explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others.[8] (Alavi & Leidner 2001).

Yes indeed. This looks weird. But I can also see the result in the non beta mode. If I remember well, there has been not too long ago a upgrade in Wikipedia. Maybe there is a bug in this new version.--Nabeth (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

History: Concrete applications of knowledge modelling exist ...

I am going to remove the following content that was added in the History section.

---

Concrete applications of knowledge modelling exist meanwhile: The end of the 1990 provided W3C standards which enabled ontologies to unite 4 modelling functions in 1 knowledge model: the knowledge representation (in RDF(S) and OWL), the knowledge generation through inferences, the conceptual model through ontologies and the physical model through triple stores. The latest developments allow to generate applications straight from the knowledge systems (ontologies). This approach finds its justification in the use of semantic technologies with substitution of www data by verified production data.

---

It does not seem to be the correct place to had this content (that I find personally a little bit too technical for this article, but why not? I like to have multi-disciplinary articles).

Please add it back in the article, preferably at another place. (Or explain why you put it in the history section.). Thanks

--Nabeth (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

An Illustration of KM

I would like to link to this:

• http://wikiexpert.com/Knowledge_Management

as a good illustration of knowledge management. It does not yet show up in DMOZ, but I beleive provides a useful example. --phalseid (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Private web site does not look appropriate--Snowded ^TALK 18:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

==========

Not sure if this is fitting, or how it would be incorporated. However I do think it may be useful...

I was previously a Knowledge Manager at a mid-sized global accounting and management consulting firm. During that time (in the late '90's) I developed theories, practical application, and a useful model for the process of converting information into knowledge. I wrote a post about my experience as a knowledge manager, including my experiences with specific tools and methods for moving to a "learning organization." In this post I offered a graphical process model that is intuitive and understandable for moving organizations along the continuum needed for true knowledge / learning organizations.

Section toward the bottom entitled "Refinements, Enhancements, and New Dimensions to Collaboration and Knowledge Tools."

Explains the difference between "information management" and "knowledge management" which is often confused. Introduces the knowledge management process model and specific application to incorporating KM related social media tools into SAP as an ERP application.

We don't use commercial and promotional sources. Please also sign you comments--Snowded ^TALK 23:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Please help archive this discussion page. Its getting too long. -- Extra999 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)