Knowledge Management may have failed for empowerment and success but its effort is sustained today by the quest for autonomy linked to self-organization and self-drive. The Knowledge interactions that stymied Knowledge Management remain untamed. My means for Knowledge Flows tames interactions and conducts Dialogue for Feedback. Freedom and success follow.
Today we live in the shadow of catastrophe with the rich/poor, the ethnic and the digital divide growing. It raises the question: has mankind gained in its ability to pursue empowerment and success over the centuries? Empowerment is a powerful and romantic thought, linked as it is with Knowledge and Freedom, and success is a deep human desire. Together they represent the progress of man’s intellect.
Knowledge Management was perhaps the first major attempt to develop a science around these two concepts. It declared the high end Knowledge workers engaged in judgments, investments, decision making, and risks worthy of special consideration because of their perceived impact on the destiny of the enterprise.
Knowledge Management (KM) could not break the following logic loop: If the workers themselves cannot organize the flow of their interactions then IT cannot hope to do it. Thus KM could not overcome the impossibility of a one-size-fit-all Knowledge process. It submitted to the conventional wisdom that workers must self-organize and self-drive their Knowledge interactions. Correspondingly, KM proceeded to ignore System behavior, treated IT is a tool for Knowledge work and focused on the empirical aspects of Knowledge working:
- Incentive and motivation systems to foster a culture for sharing Knowledge
- Incentives/IT development to foster adoption of IT tools for collaboration
- An organization or task force to assure total capture of Knowledge
- The management of the Knowledge captured
- Effective reuse of the available Knowledge
- Measures to satisfy the identified needs of Knowledge workers like mobility, push/pull stimulation, interaction, privacy and contemplation
- Identification of Key Result Areas and measures to guide the practice of Knowledge Management.
In the absence of a compelling System for Knowledge work – a method of working propelled by satisfaction of deep personal and professional needs - each of the above areas developed into a specialization with personnel required to perform the coordination. Systems on the lines of Quality certification were proposed (Satyadas & Harigopal) for the systematic conduct of Knowledge Management. This approach to better Knowledge work implied very expensive administrative overheads. It suffered from quite a few drawbacks:
- Lack of support from philosophy and hence human nature. Knowledge Management sought to achieve its purpose by emphasizing the Knowledge imperative, namely, personnel must share because Knowledge work is like capital in its productivity but, unlike capital which declines with giving, the pool of Knowledge is raised by Sharing.
- Disregard of the quality and quantity of interactions. In particular, use of simple linear language, good only for communicating the inner life and Knowledge of personnel, for communicating the complex content common to teams (see Barrier ‘Creating a common language to unite stakeholders’ to appreciate forces neglected). The communication was further complicated by the rapid growth of interactions.
- Disregard of the loops of learning (See Barrier ‘Neglect of the accumulated Management Wisdom’ for details).
- Dependence on incentives. Pfeffer & Sutton (1) have represented outdated cultures that treat Knowledge as power, fear of change, false analogies, internal competition, empty talk, mindless measurements, etc., are common. They prevent conversion of Knowledge as in best practices, insights, well laid plans, etc., to action, leading to billions in extra cost and failures. Incentives can be counter-productive as they are prone to the ‘smart talk trap’.
- Poor adoption. The approach neglects worker needs – release from discipline, time/energy intensive and comfort-zone threatening tasks - and at the same time seeks to change power equations, in particular the status-quo.
Knowledge Management did not succeed because of the seriousness of the drawbacks. At their core is the inability to tame Knowledge interactions. However, the force of its central ideas – empowerment and success - is such that they carry on. Not only are Knowledge interactions as unruly and chaotic and pressure inducing as ever but they are growing in their intensity to revolutionize the business place as evidenced by McKinsey studies (2).
- 70 percent of all US jobs created since 1998 require judgment and experience. The ratio is increasing rapidly. These jobs now make up 41 percent of the labor market in the United States
- Recent studies—including landmark research McKinsey conducted in 1997—show that specialization, globalization, and technology are making interactions far more pervasive in developed economies. Outsourcing, for example, dramatically increases the need to interact.
Driven on by the romance of empowerment and the deep desire for success, Neo-KM has taken over the baton from Knowledge Management. It does not offer any means to tame interactions that is organized and managed by an intelligence independent of Knowledge workers and is therefore as dependent upon the personnel as before. MIX itself showcases many Neo-KM initiatives. They suggest direct action like dismantling Command & Control or counseling to establish Trust & Teamwork or better Knowledge sharing in the name of either Freedom or good sense and civilized behavior or flow of Knowledge as a commodity. There is also a segment that believes better thinking for policy formulation is all that is needed for transformation. The assumption is that either the inherent value of Knowledge or the higher sensitivities or leader charisma can be a driving energy resource on the enterprise scale on a sustainable basis. The commercialization of Knowledge perhaps has method but lacks philosophy. Its materialistic appeal is inherently weak as established by Pfeffer & Sutton (1). The policy approach is needed for direction but must be supported by pragmatic execution since just thinking, whatever its quality, was never enough for uniting and driving a collective on a sustained basis. The higher sensitivities approach requires everybody to function with pure reason, team spirit, responsibility and consideration all the time. This approach to superior execution has succeeded under charismatic leaders like David Packard, Ken Iverson, and Sam Walton and in boutique organizations like IDEO. But instead of finding a means to promote the essence of their experience and realize the possible the attempt is to somehow replicate their results on the enterprise scale. Leadership and charisma either do not sustain on the enterprise scale or offer unstable models for replication.
The following understanding of success by Sun Tzu (3), the influential military strategist, philosopher and successful General of the Chinese Wu King in 5th century BC, has stood the test of time. It provides a valuable perspective to answer the question this hack addresses - has there been any progress in the use of Knowledge?:
“If you know yourself and know the enemy, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles”.
I believe this means that if you emerge the Reality then success will follow.
Advances during the 20th century have identified the disciplines that surface the Reality and progress effective action. They were presented by Peter Senge (4) in his book ‘The Fifth Discipline’ published in 1991 to universal acclaim. The skills developed by the disciplines are as follows:
- Problem Definition: It is progressed by focus on the root cause of the problem instead of the triggering event or the symptoms that reflect it. Mentoring facilitates the definition. The discipline is achieved by feedback to expose the generalizations made and surface the assumptions that underlie interpretation of facts.
- Problem Solving: Focus on patterns of behavior and consciousness of the Whole vs. the Part, or the discipline of Systems Thinking, raises the quality of judgments that precede decision making. X-border feedback on assumptions, generalizations and perception stimulates a shift of mind as well as initiates an innovative response.
- Concerted Action. The discipline of feedback drives learning. Feedback is the intrinsic power of a collective. It leads to the formation of teams that foster trust and dispel the fear arising from uncertainty by spreading out responsibility. Feedback also facilitates firm leadership in synch with the grass-roots. In effect Feedback concerts action and raises the Collective Ability for superior execution to enable teams get what they want.
It emerges that Feedback, a product of Systems Thinking, is the key driver of Trust & Teamwork and the emergence of Reality. It may be understood as the prime enabler of individual and team Learning. It is this Learning that raises the ability to get what is wanted. It is the missing element for invigorating the all-important Collective Ability following its stagnation as discussed in my Barrier ‘‘Absence of a means to exploit the latent collective ability for pursuing success’. Feedback does not distinguish between the big and the small Knowledge worker. All are contributors to Reality and the response. It follows that the organization for Feedback, i.e., coordination and Knowledge capture, creates Trust & Teamwork and hence the collective. Further, per anthropologist Edward Hall as reported by Senge (4), it taps into a basic human drive: “The drive to learn is as strong as the sexual drive - it begins earlier and lasts longer”.
- A way to create a meaningful Collective and raise its ability is a major advance. Today methods exist to define individual identity and raise ability. Prime amongst them is Yoga. I do not know of a reliable method to create the Collective or make it more productive.
Feedback is nothing but free-flow of Knowledge in context. It is demonstrated by the Discussion Boards of web news stories. The simple format makes it a matter of procedure. My Barrier ‘The importance of dreaming about the free flow of Knowledge’ explores the concept of free-flow and concludes it is delivered by Dialogue. Dialogue on a sustained basis on each decision event demands enormous organization and discipline, hence immense energy. Today no reliable means exist to engender the organization and discipline for enterprises to assure Dialogue as needed on each event. The valuable combination of time, energy and volition that personnel are willing to volunteer was perhaps exhausted by the demand of the times a decade ago.
Free-flow of Knowledge has proven itself for superior Knowledge application and higher Collective Ability. The Wikipedia is an example. However, Prof. A. McAfee (5) has surfaced in his blog that Wiki’s underlying technology, Web 2.0, needs to be adapted for the enterprise. Participation by personnel has to be somehow raised to cross the tipping point for reliability. My Hack 'Creating a common language to unite stakeholders' argues Web x.0 simply does not have the DNA to foster free flow of Knowledge across the enterprise.
The answer to the question on progress of mankind is now clear. One is inclined to consider Knowledge of the way to Collective formation, understanding and promotion of Freedom, and the concept of individual empowerment as major advances. However my discussion here on Collective formation and my Barriers ‘The importance of dreaming about the free flow of Knowledge’ and ‘Change from within is a citadel that must be stormed – from within’ explore each of these developments and conclude they have their genesis in the flow of Knowledge. My Barrier ‘Neglect of the accumulated Management Wisdom’ shows that the accumulated wisdom of mankind is lying fallow in the absence of free-flow of Knowledge. It also identifies the needs of Knowledge workers that must be satisfied by any attempt to provide them a compelling way of working for generating the free-flow..
Thus far mankind has prided itself on knowing the way to empowerment and success and is inspired by results on a limited scale. That is not enough. The way needs to be practiced on the emerging global scale as well as in the much maligned government administration, and not function as a hot topic for foofaraw (a wonderfully evocative word created by Scholtes and pointed out by Nayantara in her Barrier ‘The Need to Progress From People To Their Knowledge’). The Hack ‘Compelling Energy for a quantum jump in organization performance with the same resources’ explains my all-sizes-fit-one Knowledge process and its successful conversion of IT from just a tool to inexhaustible intelligent energy. The energy integrates the Knowledge worker’s need to interact with a compelling means for the organization and drive of meaningful Dialogue on each event.
Dialogue in context is sufficient to drive successful realization of the ends of Knowledge, namely, empowerment and success. Dialogue is unlike the other techniques for superior thinking like De Bono's Six Thinking Hats. They demand application of specialized Knowledge to show results. Study of patterns, incorporated in Systems Thinking, is not a direct component of Dialogue. However, it is facilitated by the capture of Knowledge that produces Dialogue. Dialogue as organized and driven by intelligent energy, is a means for conversation, free flow of Knowledge and superior thinking. It will serve all techniques of better thinking and enhance their prospects as well as gain from them.
I have treated failure of the practice of Knowledge Management and its replacement by neo-KM concepts for empowerment and success as worthy of a hack to emphasize Management must achieve a shift in mind towards Knowledge Application. Perhaps a System possessing the reserves of energy to organize and drive Knowledge interactions and manage Feedback is the most difficult part of winning with Knowledge.
Please see Materials Section for guidance to my hack on compelling energy to progress change.
(1) Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. (January 15, 2000). The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge Into Action. Harvard Business School Press.
(2) MCKinsey Studies: Employee interactions: creating competitive advantages - McKinsey Quarterly - Organization - Strategic Organization:
https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Strategic_Organization/The_next_revolution_in_interactions_1690
(3) Sun Tzu. (~500 BC). The art of war. http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html
(4) Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline. NY: Currency Doubleday (First Published: 1990)
(5) McAfee.A. (April 15, 2006) Blog: The Business Impact Of IT. http://andrewmcafee.org/2006/04/ (Accessed July 01, 2010).
Hello Raj
Thank you for coming over to my own hack for a visit and your kind suggestion that the survey I'm presenting might be complementary to your work as it is presented here and through the network of inter-related articles you've posted. I am very complimented by that because it is so clear you have studied the dynamics of trust deeply and you are taking a multifaceted and wholistic perspective. I'm afraid I'm not so conversant with Knowledge Management, and so I also appreciate the many references that you've created throughout.
I must tell you that I struggle with what you are presenting a bit, not because I disagree with it at all, but because I have a hard time understanding what you are actually saying. I hope you are not offended by this, because I'll bet there is an important breakthrough in your work. It's that your presentation style, Raj, to me is quite abstract and I am having a very hard time following you. As a day-to-day practitioner, it seems to me part of the challenge for all of what we do is to make it translatable to people who will use it. I would love to build on what you are saying, but I'm not sure I even know where to begin. That may be my challenge more than yours but I also offer it as feedback to you, and part of the reality of a communication gap I am personally experiencing. I wonder if others on this site are experiencing that also. I know you value feedback so perhaps this is an area where you could ask for it from others here. I am most happy to keep this dialogue open and help in any way I can, and I am certainly willing to acknowledge my own flaws in the process. I sense for myself that I not only would need time to read your articles and digest them, I would also need very concrete examples of the breakthrough in action addressing real-time workplace problems, especially those dealing with mistrust and where dialogue has become difficult because of it. Very concrete. I am not suggesting, by the way, that you try to dumb down what you are sharing, or offer your thoughts in a way that is not your own, but I am wondering how you might enrich your presentation so that you and I (at least) can more easily make the cross-connection. I do confess I haven't read all of your articles, so perhaps it is simply a matter of pointing me in the right direction. Again, I deeply I hope that this perspective is not offending to you. My intention is to make the connection and to understand your work better, that is all.
And by the way, I did not find your presentation here cynical. All of us who are working on innovation face frustration, I think, and if that leaks into the conversation, it seems to me the only obligation is to try to understand its origins. From my standpoint, it's always better to get the cynical stuff on the table rather than suppressing it; then mine it for the gold of understanding that may lie hidden within the tone.
Many best wishes
Dan
- Log in to post comments
Hello Dan,
Dhiraj has said at your site that you have the courage of honesty and I thank you for it.
I am an engineer by training who wandered into Management Philosophy. So my writing has overtones of a mathematician instead of a magician. I wish it were the latter and I could write a Mona Lisa, perhaps like Gary Hamel, which makes sense to all viewpoints.
I have the advantage of knowing your viewpoint, as I do of Dhiraj and others, so I shall try to create a starting point for you.
Your focus is trust and teamwork because you believe they anchor great performance. Trust for you is unrestrained engagement in real collaboration on demand and Teamwork is the relationships that make the engagement possible.
My example of a discussion board (https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1IHSjKt7geYBJw_tKGB2JODQyYWmecuaPB9Bb9iGMYXo&hl=en&authkey=COmV_twK) is illustration of real collaboration on an event. It is a model for the flow that must be achieved inside the enterprise to build trust. You have posited a survey to lay the groundwork for such collaboration. The survey has many useful insights for personnel to function as better team members. However, you still depend upon personnel to have the volition, and spare the time and energy to interact meaningfully for raising their trust and teamwork. In the modern business place, as established by McKinsey reports and growing incidence of workplace rage and violence, this volition/time/energy is in short supply.
Today IT offers tremendous power to connect with anybody 24x7. However, it is helpless when it comes to the Give ‘n’ Take. It is believed IT can at best be a tool for collaboration. Today it is inconceivable for IT to drive real collaboration since the single process needed to harness its power is an impossibility: after all Knowledge is a possession and its flows are discretionary and unpredictable.
I have succeeded in creating the required single process and integrated it with a flexible organization structure. If you wish to understand beyond this point things become rocky. All I shall offer here is that the industry stopped its effort to create a single process at the first barrier: the impossibility of a one-size-fit-all Knowledge process. I treated team interactions as a product of evolution – only the patterns or norms that progress teams survive, the rest perish. With these norms I have put together an all-sizes-fit-one Knowledge process. It serves the purpose of a single process for conducting any ad-hoc combination of Knowledge processes on a business event. My hack on compelling energy explains it. I have used the process to harness IT for driving systematic assembly of Knowledge interactions on a business event. The product is reliable Knowledge free-flow on the event broken up by facts, assumptions, opinions and action-taken as shown in slide 2 of the document at https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B1ka9xLnpQUNZDIxNTVmOTUtZDFlNS00ZmM0LTg3OGMtYjUzMjBjYTBmNjRh&hl=en&authkey=CPven4QG. This systematic flow is superior to the discussion board as it is secure and searchable by categories, and akin to dialogue since it acknowledges assumptions and anybody satisfying the security can participate.
You rely upon motivation to build trust for the conversations driven by my intelligent energy 24x7. The energy is available off-line. Its process embeds itself and induces a Knowledge sharing culture over time. Trust, as explained, is a by-product. The means is used because Knowledge workers must interact and my System organizes them and offers them an irresistible way to work and interact. Their work anxiety is minimized. They get more family time. The considerable time and energy created may be invested in superior trust/Knowledge interactions or raising the level of participation or sustaining a higher volition.
What I have explained here is one facet of success: trust. My understanding of success and its delivery by managing interactions is summarized by my presentation at https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AVka9xLnpQUNZGZ4cnF6cHpfNzU2Z2YyamRwZHM&hl=en&authkey=CJWu2r4H .
I am aware my opaque writing style could have crept in here. Perhaps some day I will get an opportunity to demonstrate the free-flow to you and show how an IT infrastructure is capable of building trust.
Warm regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
It is great coming in touch with genuine interest. When I do get my first enterprise site up it shall be a pleasure sharing with someone who believed in the possible when the table top was clean.
It was exciting reading about the success of your categorization of knowledge exchange in the husband/wife case. The dynamics you have described is precisely what I had in mind. I do not as yet know whether it is ignorance or wisdom that I have chosen to keep feelings out of the frame. Feelings definitely decide the thinking but they cloud it and take it on a tangential ride. Therefore I designed to keep the focus on what is on the table. I got the idea of Facts and Assumptions from Senge and Bohm's power of dialogue. Annie's hack just proves that once the assumptions are recognized the reality starts converging. I expect my work to not only start the process but also hasten it. However, that will not be my emphasis. I shall focus on the coordination and let the natural desire of personnel to know the mind and question it take over from there.
Your survey for me is the perfect guide. It reminded me of the time my son began applying for Liberal Arts education in the US. He is a well educated MBA now and working with a Private Equity firm. He was a carefree bloke in his school days till he filled the Application Form for Liberal Arts. Whole new dimensions of achievement opened up to him. He could see how certain developments mattered and feel their importance first hand. No amount of counselling could have brought about the shift in his mind that the Application Form did. I believe your survey will achieve that. The intelligent energy of my work needs a direction and your survey will contribute to it. I may not implement it but as I said, it will serve to guide the thinking on establishing constructive interactions. You have used the word 'tame' very well.
Awed that you interacted with Demming and he had a message for you. I think it is the sense of mission that creates people like him and they learn as they go along. He gave you perhaps his most precious word! It is a message for anybody who hears it - like me.
Raj
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Dear Rajkumar,
The hacks and barriers you have updated explain your breakthrough quite comprehensively to a person who may wish to understand the application of Knowledge. However, a personal touch may help to achieve the shift of mind you are seeking from knowledge management to interaction management and application of knowledge. You may like to consider updating your Story to the MIX.You did have a story entry but I do not see it now.
Regards,
Nayantara
- Log in to post comments
Hi!
Your anger at the phantom of the MIX has been honorably mentioned at http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/cracking-code-group-trust-team-trust-survey . Also you may like to take advantage of an excellent opportunity for debate there with Dan. I have enjoyed my interaction with him.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Thanks for the thought. I had pulled my Story out of the MIX but re-inserted it post your encouragement.
Many thanks for your sustained interest.
Warm regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Thanks for introducing me to MIX. Its taken me some time to understand this hack, particularly your contribution. It is a bit difficult to achieve a shift of mind from IT is a tool to IT is driving energy for Knowledge work. Without this fundamental shift it is difficult to make the next shift from Management of Knowledge to Management of Interactions. Once the shift is achieved the immense value-add of the hack stands out clearly.
All the best,
P.Singh
- Log in to post comments
I find it difficult to accept that your comment has gone unnoticed by me for so long. My apologies.
I am the loser for you have made profound observations, particularly the one relating to the shift of mind. I must agree it is very hard to achieve. I wonder if there is a strategy to it. I have come to believe that one has to keep on trying and wait for events to unfold.
Thanks and regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Hello,
I have made it a point to learn what i can from the top ten hacks.
Annie of Source Integral has put up a hack on how to kill mistrust in the bud for it can have adverse consequences going forward. Her approach to this value-add activity is manual. I have my doubts of its effectiveness in a large enterprise, particularly since she too regards it as an inadvertant activity in the incipient stages. Will your work be meaningful in this context?
Regards,
Dhiraj
- Log in to post comments
Have not had much time to wander around in the MIX site. Any means for trust and teamwork must rely on conversations and they are conducted by interactions. Today, the interactions for trust have to be conducted manually. With my means for Dialogue and its format of emphasizing assumptions the conduct of interactions will contribute to Trust & Teamwork. Thus, with availability of the energy needed to organize and drive the Disciplines for teamwork, trust is a by-product. I suspect most techniques engaged in trust building have yet to understand the adverse ipact of the growth of interactions. Further, the cures they recommend in terms of counselling add to an existing burden on time and energy and this may undermine impact of the cure. Full cure demands an understanding of the reality.
As pointed out by me in response to your query on Ellen, my work in organizing and capturing conversations will also enable greater productivity for the trust counsellors and may even empower the team members to engage in their own trust building.
Best wishes,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Thanks. Saw Annie's comments on my last post in a different light following your clarification. Actually, I felt what you said but faced a problem in articulating it clearly.
Regards,
Dhiraj
- Log in to post comments
Hello Raj,
I noted today that you have not visited your other hacks since some time. My comments there have not been acknowledged. Your present hack led to some fresh thinking. I have updated new comments to your other hacks. I hope you have the time to answer them for I need answers to believe your contribution.
Regards,
Dhiraj
- Log in to post comments
Yes, I been nursing this hack. It synthesizes all my contributions to MIX. Will try to answer your queries today itself.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Hello Raj,
I was influenced by your thinking on conduct of conversations for superior thinking. It has reflected in my comments on other hacks, in particular Ellen Weber's hack on celebration of innovation at http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/celebration-innovation-%E2%80%93-.... I noted your appreciation there. Will appreciate your comments on the inferences drawn by me.
Regards,
Dhiraj
- Log in to post comments
To set the context straight let me copy my feedback to Ellen. It will provide a perspective:
"Your manifesto reminded me of the Six Thinking Hats of Bono, the six Learning Disabilities and the nine Defence Mechanisms (listed by Senge). Bono has focused only on his techniques but Senge favors Dialogue for communication as compared to your emphasis on Tone. Dialogue will foster the skills per Senge. I got the impression Tone may still require the Knowledge worker to focus on the technique."
You have represented to Ellen that Tone is no protection against the growth of interactions since Tone depends on interactions to be effective. Tone also, because its conduct is so personal, cannot easily take advantage of technology. I agree with your conclusion that Tone may lose its effectiveness in a large organization. Dialogue, on the other hand, is procedural. I have succeeded in conducting it with technology. As I have noted in my hack, it will not only contribute to thinking methods like that of MITA but also gain from them. When I say contribute it is not only in terms of greater effectiveness of the method but also in making the practitioners more effective. They will be able to mentor a far greater set of people with technology.
I trust that answers your query. Thanks for your convictions. i trust Ellen did not misunderstand your query.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Hello Rohit,
I had reason to remember your comment on love of Knowledge making the shift of mind to means for Knowledge Application difficult. Nayantara saw an entirely different aspect of my hack - Its delivery of a System. Of course, the System concept is related to her Barrier on separating the flow of Knowledge from its ownership. While I entirely agree with her emphasis on Systems, without a reliable and stable System I too would have been in the neo-KM camp, I observed to her the importance of achieving the shift of mind. Without that basic realization in place all my work will lose meaning.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Dear Nayantara,
Your appreciation makes me feel I am a step closer to communicating the shift of mind that must be achieved from desiring the ends of Knowledge, i.e., Collective, Freedom, Empowerment and Success, to progressing means for coordinating interactions. The future lies in taming Knowledge interactions and not in a head on assault in achieving the ends of Knowledge. They will follow as by-products.
Thank you.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Dear Rajkumar,
I think this hack crystallizes your thinking and work and its impact on management practices. In particular you have studied the possible that a superior culture delivers, and recognized that most enterprises will find it supremely difficult to achieve the culture. You have identified that the core of a supreme culture is the organization and discipline for Feedback. Your hack clarifies that your conversion of IT to intelligent energy organizes and drives the System needed to deliver Feedback on a sustained basis on each event. Here I could actually experience the delivery because of the clear illustration of free flow that accompanied the text on Feedback.
I particularly identified with your closing statement 'Perhaps a System possessing the reserves of energy to organize and drive Knowledge interactions and manage Feedback is the most difficult part of winning with Knowledge.' The need for such a System is central to my Barrier.
Regards,
Nayantara
- Log in to post comments
Hello Rohit,
Thank you for your comment.
I entirely agree with the love for Knowledge observation. Unless we see beyond it to what is holding up the benefits and clear the ground our love shall remain unrequited.
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
Hello Raj
The necessity for a shift of mind from Knowledge Management to Knowledge Application needed to be explained. It was important to appreciate just where the shoe had begun to pinch with the growth of interactions. I see the prime value addition of this hack as provision of a cogent explanation for the shift. I particularly like the term neo-KM. It very aptly defines the pursuit of many hacks that I have seen at MIX. The love for Knowledge and its possibilities dominates the very real problems of its application.
- Log in to post comments
Hello Dhiraj,
Thanks for your sustained interest and for actually reading my sketches!
Your comment shook loose a thought. Knowledge Management focused on the capture, storage, access and reuse of Knowledge. Had it instead focused on interactions it would have perhaps delivered more value. To begin with, it would have focused on the first step towards superior Knowledge application and that is coordination or the means for formation of the collective. Knowledge Management had a grand idea but no ground beneath its feet.
Thanks once again,
Regards,
Raj Kumar
- Log in to post comments
There appears to be a one-point focus to your contributions. Having said it I must acknowledge that each of your sketches is an independent piece of a jigsaw puzzle where a picture comes into focus once it is assembled per the directions stated in the Materials section.
Your Compelling Energy hack appears to have solved the long festering problem of a means for managing interactions to create a constructive collective, tied together not by emotion but by Knowledge shared. The key contribution is that meaningful sharing is assured by intelligent energy created by technology.
I welcome this hack because it explains the need for a shift of mind on Knowledge Management and surfaces a very important quality of Dialogue: it is all in one, for better thinking and working required for the new focusof Knowledge Application. It is difficult to envisage intelligent energy but if it can deliver what Knowledge Management sought – both Trust & Teamwork, then we can look forward to real change.
Best wishes and Regards,
Dhiraj
- Log in to post comments
You need to register in order to submit a comment.