Here are the slides and comment streams from today's program that featured:

The New EconomicsPeter Bretscher will share his thoughts on integrating intangible assets and enhancing the economic value paradigm with a subjective value metric resulting in an integral new business model and understanding of the next economy.

Is Now the Time to Create CKO's?Matthew Loxton says When I did my Masters in KM I had been focused on how to fix infuriating operational problems at work, but part of the coursework included Drucker and other luminaries who thundered on about how every firm would have a CKO...but there are still no CKO's inside companies. If 80% of the value of firms is in the IC, then why do we all have a CFO but no CKO?

Comments:

For Peter:

Justine Tang: Peter, how can motivating staff be valued?

Justine Tang: It is because economists understand correlations by quantative data, isn't it?

Mary Adams: Is it fair to call this an expansion of Michael Porter's value chain?

Debra Amidon: I hope not...instead, it is examining the new elements of the innovation value-system (I hope).

Bill Miller: Metrics need to be ranked in important? A key metric is the probablistic nature of market demand for the offering.

Manfred Bornemann: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_curve

Ken Jarboe: Picking the right metrics is clearly the key -- any thoughts on process of identifying key metrics?

Debra Amidon: Peter: We've reached some similar conclusions - evaluating the 'value-flow' with EU-funded NEFFICS project [www.neffics.eu] on Business Model Innovation. Would be useful to compare notes!

 

For Matthew:

Mary Adams: Like Peter, Matthew also started on the "production" side...

Frank Leistner: Are all those "Knowledge XXX" roles really KM? Or is it just cool to add the knowledge word?

Gordon McConnachie: Matthew this development cycle is quite understandable as ICM started in companies BEFORE it was taken up by academia.

Gordon McConnachie: Your historical summary and present day position is a very excellent one.

Frank Leistner: Would you agree that the key role of a CKO is integration of otherwise less connected elements of the organization

Mary Adams: Great point Gordon. I'm trying to decide what that means for IC theory--are we forcing this on businesses or giving them a vocabulary for what they are already doing?

Ken Jarboe: Is there really any business that doesn't rely on knowledge? Isn't the real trick in creating all of those back ground factors to make companies ready for KM? I understadn that it is difficult -- but that is where the real payoff is.

Gordon McConnachie: Many companies do pieces of ICM ............few do it systematically .............and in line with their inherent culture…. All we can do is faclitate their development.

Debra Amidon: Knowledge Management has always been and has always been an oxymoron. Innovation, instead, is the environment within which you manage the flow of knowledge. Innovation provides the common language and shared vision. Thus we have witnessed the emerging role of the Chief Innovation Officer [CInO].

Debra Amidon: And Ken - to your point: Innovation applies to all enterprises, not just businesses.

Ken Jarboe: Exactly right about growing understanding of value of IC. FYI--Story in today's FT about how banks are trying to use IP as recognized collateral on loans.

Debra Amidon: Matthew: YOu are correct - the explosion of new knowledge markets sets the stage . Check the work of Bryan Davis our taxonomy: http://www.kikm.org/portal/page2.htm.

Frank Leistner: Do you really think the mistakes are all rectified? I see loads of tweets offering "Try my technology and KM is really easy" - the tech -only focussed approach is still so much out there, I see loads of tweets offering "Try my technology and KM is really easy" - the tech -only focussed approach is still so much out there, I fear...

Views: 283

Attachments:

Replies to This Discussion

@Frank Leistner: Are all those "Knowledge XXX" roles really KM? Or is it just cool to add the knowledge word?

Well yes, they are often just done out of "coolness", and to be frank sometimes line managers and Recruiters get the titles completely wrong - for example a "Knowledge Analyst" could mean a $40k/yr job coding knowledge articles and putting them into a knowledgebase, or it could be a $140k/yr job actually doing business analysis in terms of knowledge.

However, there are a great many more real KM roles out there and even if the terminology is often misused, lots of KM work is being done.

A CKO role is however something special because to have one means to acknowledge the importance of knowledge activities, and to both formalize and institutionalize the curation and management of one's IC.

@Gordon McConnachie: Matthew this development cycle is quite understandable as ICM started in companies BEFORE it was taken up by academia.

Indeed, and to a very real extent, I was "doing KM" way back when I was maintaining a technical library to repair aircraft instrumentation systems and we were participating in monthly flight-safety meetings to share and discuss experiences and talk over recent aircraft accidents reported across the world.

However, there is some added benefit to having a classification that says that we are now "doing KM".

@Frank Leistner: Would you agree that the key role of a CKO is integration of otherwise less connected elements of the organization

Very much so!

The biggest part has to be looking at knowledge across all elements - just like a CFO looks at money across a form rather than only in each department.

@Mary Adams: Great point Gordon. I'm trying to decide what that means for IC theory--are we forcing this on businesses or giving them a vocabulary for what they are already doing?

I would say both Mary.

We are forcing them to the extent of putting in place institutional practices that are rooted in managing knowledge assets, but also allowing them to see that many of the things they are already comfortable with would stay the same but give them a terminology that shows how they are connected through the use and production of knowledge.

@Ken Jarboe: Is there really any business that doesn't rely on knowledge? Isn't the real trick in creating all of those back ground factors to make companies ready for KM? I understadn that it is difficult -- but that is where the real payoff is.

Well I doubt it but since there is a variance and all activities will fall on a continuum in which some are certainly more dependent on knowledge than others, I will allow for the remote possibility of a guy that says "knowledge schmoledge, we don't need no stinkin knowledge"

A firm that simply copies other people's innovations might have far lower knowledge needs than one that innovates, and firms that simply supply labor might also be far lower on the scale than those supplying expertise.

I haven't yet seen one in which knowledge has no significance, but maybe there is one out there someplace and if there is, I can't help them! ;)

Thanks for the answer @Matthew, I agree that there is a lot more of the roles and many more of them are probably touching upon the type of more holistic KM understanding, I share your optimism that it is going into the right direction. But even on the higher level roles (Knowledge Manager, Knowledge Officer), I have seen several job ads lately that turned out to be IT directors in the end, and their job was organizing the IT Infrastructure, nothing about community, nothing about integrating HR, Communications, IT and Line functions.

I also think there is still a disconnect in many organizations (not my own, luckily) where people say "knowledge is their biggest asset", but the money gets all spend on the portal and "knowledge system", and no funds  left for investing into a strategic role like a CKO, community manager etc. Especially when times are financially unsafe short-term (buy technology) seems still the easier decision than long-term (get the right people on board that will help with "knowledge issues"  more ongoing - yes with the help of technology, but also with a lot of other activities and not starting with technology first and trying to squeeze the human and process aspects in later.


Matthew Loxton said:

@Frank Leistner: Are all those "Knowledge XXX" roles really KM? Or is it just cool to add the knowledge word?

Well yes, they are often just done out of "coolness", and to be frank sometimes line managers and Recruiters get the titles completely wrong - for example a "Knowledge Analyst" could mean a $40k/yr job coding knowledge articles and putting them into a knowledgebase, or it could be a $140k/yr job actually doing business analysis in terms of knowledge.

However, there are a great many more real KM roles out there and even if the terminology is often misused, lots of KM work is being done.

A CKO role is however something special because to have one means to acknowledge the importance of knowledge activities, and to both formalize and institutionalize the curation and management of one's IC.

@Gordon McConnachie: Many companies do pieces of ICM ............few do it systematically .............and in line with their inherent culture…. All we can do is faclitate their development.

Very much so, facilitate, accelerate, and integrate.

Hopefully, if Knowledge is a significant aspect of their business model, they will be open to adopting KM institutionally - and this is to me the key point of having a CKO, a CKO role is what institutionalizes the curation and management of knowledge assets.

@Debra Amidon: Knowledge Management has always been and has always been an oxymoron. Innovation, instead, is the environment within which you manage the flow of knowledge. Innovation provides the common language and shared vision. Thus we have witnessed the emerging role of the Chief Innovation Officer [CInO].

True, but only of the one arm of KM.

KM splits into a Conservation side and an Innovation side, and in a very real sense you have to firewall the two activities from each other because they are mutually corrosive and inhibitory.

The Conservation side is all about increasing quality, reducing waste, eliminating variance - all things that speak of the roots in the TQM movement and the fingerprints of Deming.

The Innovation side is about bringing different CoP into contact, sometimes in ways that guarantee conflict, searching for positive deviance, etc. It increases variance, waste, and uncertainty.

However since both are knowledge ecosystems, I place both under KM.

@Ken Jarboe: Exactly right about growing understanding of value of IC. FYI--Story in today's FT about how banks are trying to use IP as recognized collateral on loans.

Fascinating!

I would love to see how they do the valuation.

@Debra Amidon: Matthew: YOu are correct - the explosion of new knowledge markets sets the stage . Check the work of Bryan Davis our taxonomy: http://www.kikm.org/portal/page2.htm.

Thanks Debra, and yes, it really does feel like an explosion.

I wish I had some figures on trade in IC though, it was far more difficult to get figures than I had expected. The USPTO lists patents for sale or license, but although an interesting indicator, it doesn't tell you if they actually did get sold or licensed.

They do have a rather nice dashboard which if you haven't seen is worth a click.

http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml

I also came across this graphic, but that's about all

@Frank Leistner: Do you really think the mistakes are all rectified? I see loads of tweets offering "Try my technology and KM is really easy" - the tech -only focussed approach is still so much out there, I see loads of tweets offering "Try my technology and KM is really easy" - the tech -only focussed approach is still so much out there, I fear...

Rectified, no, but they aren't the showstoppers they used to be, so in my view we can at least partially ignore them and say that KM has now truly "arrived" and deserves to be institutionalized.

We still have far too many people who think that KM=Technology, but that number is dropping and far more people understand that technology is the smaller part of the equation.

These days for every KM magazine that is entirely about software applications, there is one that deals entirely with the other side.

When I am asked to explain KM, I usually incorporate two statements - firstly that KM is 80% about people and <20% about technology, and secondly that KM is not a branch of IT, but a form of Applied Psychology. It is a stable mate of I/O Psychology rather than of IT.

The links to the two questionnaire instruments I mentioned at the end are:

Fit-test Survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ICKC-KM
KMOL-C climate survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ICKC-KMOL

I am happy to deploy these at no charge in return for rights of use of the raw data, and at a nominal fee to tailor them to specific situations, and of course I am always happy to talk at length and with great enthusiasm about knowledge management if you need somebody to do that :)

RSS

© 2019   Created by Mary Adams.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service