Marianne Kukko from Finland presents the results of interviews with HR practitioners from 44 Finnish companies. For me the results are biased towards HR activities (e.g. training). The interesting detail of the study is about language: lack of Finnish KM terminology makes things more difficult.
Ulrich Kagrlmann talks about SENEKA project. Between other things he talks about KM trends:
- globalisation
- regionalisation
- dynamisation of job profiles
- continuous training on the job
- integration of job and private life
- multiple job
- micro-companies
Matteo Bonifacio speaks again: this time the richness of diversity in knowledge creation and about a contradiction between social and distributed way of creating knowledge and centralised technology support for it diversity. He examines several theories that say the same: diversity is good for innovation.
Then he talks about technology adoption, that happens in three ways: technology fits people’s practice, technology is shaped and changed by these practices or practices are changed to adapt to technology. Practices are social and distributes, so centralised technologies usually fail. If centralised technology succeeds it may be worse: it will imply the reduction of diversity and, as a side effect, of innovation and adaptability. So, next logical step would be to let people have their local technologies, but provide ways to coordinate between them (this is my simplification of distributed KM approach).
One of the question from the audience was about number of technologies that one can cope. I share this concern given the number of communication/discussion tools I use. I have some follow-up thinking, but it’s not getting out of me now :)
Tags: I-KNOWArchived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/07/03.html#a658; comments are here.
Related posts