Mathemagenic

This is scary: blog gives you publicity you probably don’t want. After your name pops up at the first page of search results you kind of expected to provide high quality content.

In any case it takes courage to go public. It’s even more difficult then you have high-quality everyday reading from the blogs of others. It’s easy to start doubting and believing that you have nothing "smart" to contribute. And finally, Google returns your own blog when you search for something that interests you.

It’s not funny. It’s nice at the beginning to see your name at the top. It takes a lot of courage later to continue writing. Just because you feel that you are in the "spot-light".

The story behind: After checking my referrer logs I found out that a couple of people came via Google or Yahoo. Both refer to my log at the first page when searching for informal learning.

Recently my colleague and me were searching for the term that goes beyond "knowledge worker". One suggestion was knowledge networker. I liked it as it represents the important side of knowledge work: networking with others.

Today I tried Google on knowledge networker. The bad thing is that we are not the first, but the good one is that it gave only 57 suggestions. This means that there is still a lot of space to define the term.

I’ll take some time to come up with good definition, but two things I know for sure:

• knowledge networker cares about personal knowledge management
• knowledge networker enjoys networking

Looks like it’s you :)

Kumquat's musings via Curiouser and curiouser!

The metaphor describes how innovations go from ideas to implemented projects. Here's a diagram that illustrates this process:

The process starts with a highly networked community that encourages innovation. In the early stages (water), there are a large number of players that introduce and discuss new ideas. As the more interesting concepts gain momentum, key players become known through their contributions. The ideas are then ranked and prioritized. Project teams form around the highest rated ideas and resources are allocated. The best, most valuable ideas are the ones that survive, and the most qualified and motivated people end up attached to the project. The result: the right projects with the right people.

For me it refers to another question we are discussing: how a community of practice can come up with innovative ideas. This metaphor says something about number of people you need - would be interesting to related it to the size (=type) of CoP that is capable of innovating.