You are not logged in. Use your Twitter account to sign in / sign up.
The relationship between KM and Social Media
Date & time
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 - 17:00 UTC (other timezones)
Moderated by
Share
Tags
Chat Transcript
Chat Announcement
Chat is 12-1pm ET
It seems that there should be a healthier relationship between SM and KM than there is today. We will explore the root of the differences and ways that we can blend the disciplines so that people can create something great.
Agenda
1) How are SM people different from KM people? Why are they different
2) How has KM been impacted by the explosion of SM?
3) Is enterprise2.0 the blending of SM & KM? Is there an ideal blend?
4) What are next steps for KMers to include SM? Tactical Suggestions?
Chat Summary
If your tweets are not here, I apologize. It is challenging to carve out a summary. Not many links in this transcript.
Q1: KM ppl and SM ppl seem to be very different. Why do you think that is?
Generally chatters felt that most initiatives have people, process, and technology elements. SM focused people lean towards the people element while KM focused people lean towards process
- @stangarfield: Don't see KM and SM people as that different - there is a definite overlap.
- @elsua: I think KM people have issues with the chaotic flavour of #SM, whereas #KM have got issues with the management side of #KM
- @billives: I think that the bottom up people focus of SM is what KM should be all along I found this on KM successes
- @jackvinson: #kmers Thought: SMers focus on social (people) first. KMers focus on knowledge (stuff) first
- @stangarfield: Younger people grew up using computers, IM, etc. - the older people had to learn these things - but they are catching up
- @pekadad: It seems to me like SM is more about the tools than KM at times. Tendency to be fascinated with the latest nifty tools.
Q2: How has KM been impacted by the explosion of SM?
- @VMaryAbraham: Impact on #KM? #SM has breathed new life into KM and challenged some of its false assumptions.
- @pekadad: From my view, a big impact has been a demand for all of the same tools inside the enterprise that people use outside!
- @Ridgehead: SM adds a plethora of collection and delivery points
- @VMaryAbraham: Another impact on #KM: #SM gets knowledge workers in convo w/ each other rather than via the knowledge manager
- @pekadad: I have also started to see more attention paid to "managing" social media, which (in my mind) is not a good thing.
- @billives: I think SM helps reinforce benefit of bottom up nature of deciding what content should be in KM
- @swanwick: IMHO content need not be archived/retired....it should just fade away as less relevant
- @mdieterle_chats: It's the command and control paradigm giving way to p2p collaboration
- @VMaryAbraham: But as #KM has become part of corporate policies, it has become rigid. #SM provides opportunities 4 productive flexibility
Side discussion about knowledge/content retention: general consensus that SM was helping KMers realize that less strict controls may be necessary in most situations.
- @Ridgehead: http://www.serviceinnovation.org for info about letting content fade away
Q3: Is #e20 the blending of KM and SM? Is there an ideal blend?
- @mdieterle_chats: Still believe that #KM should have the ultimate goal of becoming irrelevant as a function (b/c it's embedded)
- @elsuacon: I don't think there's an ideal blend; SM & KM are one and the same & will always remain the same; just need to go back to basics
- @steveellwood: #e20 a better sounding stalking horse for getting #SM into *big* accounts?
- @VMaryAbraham: Not sure that #e20 is a blending. It's the battleground in which #KM orthodoxies meet #SM challenges
- @pekadad: I think the blend is that SM is the content creation engine, KM is on content organization/retrieval/reuse end
- @swanwick: KM & SM -> a battle? A negotiation? A love match?
- @Ridgehead: KM is the hub. SM (FB, LI, Twitter, etc) are spokes
Q4: what are next steps we should do as KMers to blend in SM? Tactical suggestions?
- @VMaryAbraham: Tactical Suggstn: Focus on the #KM goals and use #SM as appropriate to reach those goals
- @stangarfield: If they haven't done so already, people in KM need to jump in and use SM to find out first-hand how it works and what it can do
- @jacobboone: Broaden scope of KM to harness ALL knowledge in an org's ecosytem - #SM can't be avoided in this model
- @KevinDJones: instill a sense of sharing horizontally, without fear, and to trust.
- @elsuacon: Tactical suggestion: all of us help & support, at least, one other KMer enter the SM world & experience it
- @billives: I am thinking of bottom up harvest rather than trad top down harvest of content
- @billives: by bottom up I mean letting people in organ what content is important not have it told to them
- @rdatta: capture knowledge/learnings continuously - then harvesting is just packaging and distributing
External participants
@pekadad @billives
Members
elsua, elsuacon, ewenlb, jackvinson, jacobboone, JoeRaimondo, KevinDJones, mdieterle, mdieterle_chats, md_santo, rdatta, Ridgehead, stangarfield, steveellwood, swanwick, tebbo, VMaryAbraham,
Comments
SM is just another vehicle to help connect people and encourage interaction. KM is all about connecting and sharing. I do not see an issue here. SM is what KM is all about. The piece of KM people keep leaving off is the whole knowledge generation process. Allowing people easy access to each other will increase the knowledge flow across the network and facilitate the knowledge velocity. The rate at which ideas are conceived and can be applied en masse. SM also helps to address the inequity of distribution. Instead of figuring out who do I need to share this information with, the people can now connect via SM to find the information they need and quickly get into dialog around how to apply it. I am very please to see what is happening in the SM arena. It is what KM has been waiting for to move out of its dusty closet and into a new and vibrant arena of global sharing.
Both are intertwined as part of a bigger picture. KM has four levels: assets, flow, work, and markets. SM is one method for creating and sharing knowledge, which impacts on all four levels. In the Centre for Security Science, we propose to manage knowledge from three approaches: organizational, partnership, and network. SM also impacts all three. Some interesting questions - how to manage knowledge assets in a network environment? How to capture knowledge created in a partnership environment? How to provide knowledge services from an organizational perspective?
Looking forward to tomorrow.
SM is social platform where people use it within social learning context. Social constructivism is the outcome of SM. On the other side, KM is broad term referring to human enlightment process in evolving knowledge through learning and innovation which is leveraged by Standards, Tools and Process Framework (http://mobeeknowledge.ning.com/forum/topics/human-enlightment-staging - HUMAN ENLIGHTMENT STAGING PROCESS – BASED KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) DEFINITION).
The very prominent regading its function showing KM is an access mechanism that can be used accross any management tool type (incl. SM as broader term of management tool type)
So, epistemologically SM and KM significantly very different to each other and it is not relevant using the terms "SM people vs KM people" or even for a discussion to comparing each other
Yes, of course there is impact of SM on KM, SM making people develop their ability in "Know Where" (Social Constructivism) learning strategy instead of "Know How & Know What" learning as conventional learning.
Within enterprise 2.0 context, SM is object, on the contrary KM is subject (see link http://mobeeknowledge.ning.com/forum/topics/road-mapping-the-implications - ROAD MAPPING THE IMPLICATIONS IN TREATING KNOWLEDGE AS SUBJECT). So, we could not blend SM & KM whatsoever. It is more appropriate to blend SM with Multi Media.