I was about to write a post on procrastination that keeps me from writing, but now I have something better – a couple of comments my post on bloggers as public intellectuals to follow-up.

Jack Vinson [bold is mine]:

…what I take from this is the larger picture of how people work together to develop new and interesting ideas.  Academics, the focus of Lilia’s discussion, naturally talk to one another and hammer out ideas.  It’s hard enough to see where an idea truly originates even amongst a few people.

But when the conversation crosses tens or hundreds of people AND locations AND sources AND time, then the genesis of ideas is up in the clouds.  We know this – at least this seems like something I learned through my education.  But we still insist in our society on finding THE person who came up with some invention and pouring the credit upon her.

I guess those things happened before, but with current interconnectivity the process of “cloud idea generation” becomes wider and faster. It also becomes more visible – with so much of interactions being technology-mediated it’s now more easy to see how bits of ideas travel and change.

“Pouring the credit” is an interesting issue. As a person, I’m happy inventing ideas and even more happier to see them travel and being used: knowing that a bit of my thinking was useful for someone else is rewarding by itself. In this respect I don’t really need credits, but I definitely appreciate having “trackbacks” – some way of knowing where my ideas travel and what happened to them.

For me as a professional things are much more difficult: I still get hired and get paid as an individual, not as part of the cloud. The current rules that govern my work are pretty much based on the number and quality of the ideas that could be traced to me as a contributor. In this sense, credits are essential.

While I love doing research, one of the reasons I’m not planning to stay in the academic world is the system that ties formal professional growth (which is about the scale of challenges to deal with and available resources next to the salary scale) to channelling ideas into forms and spaces (e.g. A-list journals) that might work better for credits, but do not necessarily for helping ideas to travel wider and faster.

Interestingly enough, this is also the issue that makes me thinking of getting back to my HR(D) roots after I’m done with the PhD research. I believe that many new ways of working are not getting where they could be in organisations because they do not fit with the ways the work is evaluated and rewarded.

• Reasons for not sharing knowledge
• Why storytelling works?
• Differences between teaching and knowledge sharing (2)

While working on my methodology chapter I realised that my interest in using alternative writing styles (e.g. authoethnography) in reporting research is also supported by knowing that storytelling is an effective way to share knowledge from my KM work. Now the problem is that I was never seriousely into storytelling research, so I don’t have any research-based arguments for that. Any pointers are very welcome!

From what I can recall it was something about the power of contextual cues in the story that trigger all kinds of connections in our brain.

Some randomly related things that I thought about:

• The effectiveness of online communities vs. databases of best practices (personal context, specifics, interactivity).
• Engagement as on of the Relational qualities that promote effective knowledge sharing
• “The interspersed questions prompt learners to process the material in a manner that is more likely to give birth to learning” (mathemagenic processing).

See also: a collection on how storytelling communicates complex ideas by Steve Denning

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2007/11/29.html#a1958; comments are here.

• Difficult writing for BlogTalk
• Affectionate writing reduces cholesterol
• Cross-border knowledge sharing is power

Don’t know if this piece will survive in the paper I write, so post it here. This is pretty much what I think on “why people share knowledge”.

One of the goals of knowledge management is to improve knowledge flows and knowledge reuse in an organisation. While there is much discussion on knowledge sharing, motivation and culture, the demand side of knowledge exchanges seems to get too less attention.

I believe that knowledge flows are powered by questions: in many cases employees do not mind to share their knowledge, but do not do it because nobody asks them or because they are not sure that others need to know. This could be one of the explanations behind the success of on-line communities where knowledge bases fail (e.g. in Shell EP case, see Petersen & Poulfelt, 2002 or ask Andy): many communities work in a problem-solving mode, where knowledge sharing starts with a question or problem. In this case knowledge is shared to help others, and it is rewarding. In contrast, submitting a document (for example, “lessons learnt” from a project) to a knowledge base doesn’t have an immediate question behind it, but more of an expectation of future questions that may never arise, so the motivation to share is much lower.

And, as I wrote before, asking is more difficult then answering and reinventing is more fun then reusing.

Guess what my conclusion is? KM is about motivation to learn :)

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2004/04/23.html#a1181; comments are here.

• More about knowledge sharing
• Relational qualities that promote effective knowledge sharing
• Cross-border knowledge sharing is power

Edwin Schlossberg: “The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think” (reference; via Martin Roell)

In a funny way this quote calls for many associations. It turns me to the “information vs. knowleldge” discussion which is one of the most difficult questions in KM (both “you have to make you definitions clear” and “don’t even start this discussion or we’ll never get things done”).

Although it’s a difficult topic, I’ll try to articulate where I stand:

Knowledge doesn’t exist “out there”: products and artefacts only represent knowledge that people have. Explicit knowledge is information.

Knowledge sharing doesn’t exist, it’s about at least two processes: one person tries to articulate knowledge creating artefacts (e.g. blog posts :) while another one uses artefacts to (re)construst knowledge. This is more obvious in asynchonious or mediated settings, while conversations are closer to co-construction, but any conversation still has micro steps of articulation/(re)construction.

Effective knowledge sharing is about facilitating (re)construction of knowledge: articulating in a way that is easier for another person to interpret. At this end effective knowledge sharing is about learning on one side and facilitating it on another.

If “facilitator” and “learner” share contexts one word could be enough to (re)construct the knowledge, if not the role there is need for more contextual information. ~”The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think”.

Or, if I don’t sound convincing :), check the paper that I consider the best on this issue: Stenmark, D. (2002). Information vs. Knowledge: The Role of intranets in Knowledge Management. In Proceedings of HICSS-35, Hawaii, January 7-10, 2002

[…] knowledge is based on personal experiences and cultural inheritance and fundamentally tacit. We use our knowledge to perform actions such as creating information. Although the knowledge required to create the information is interwoven with the information, the reader must still have knowledge similar to that of the creator to be able to interpret the information. The more overlapping that cultural background between the two, the easier the information is understood. Information is a vehicle for reflection that may, by informing the reader, expend or relocated his or her knowledge state. (p.9)

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2004/04/21.html#a1174; comments are here.

• Paper on the Microsoft study is online
• Knowledge sharing and rewards
• On passion, imperfections, confessional writing and fears (re: dissertation goes to a printer)

And one more colleague with a weblog: Janine Swaak. I have been working closely with Janine since I joined my current job as a researcher (she deserves a credit for being patient while I was learning “academic” style of writing :). We did together studies of CKOs, convergence of KM, training and e-learning, searching for in-house knowledge and lots of brainstorming sessions on all interesting aspects of KM.

Janine’s weblog is about knowledge animals and their territories:

The knowledge territories metaphor (KTM) I propose refers to the ways that animals leave traces and protect or show-off with their territory. In short, the notion of knowledge territories emphasises the aspect of ‘ownership’ and is used to describe how people let other people know about their knowledge and how people share knowledge. In addition the metaphor shed light on reasons why people notify others of their knowledge or not and why they share or do not share knowledge. Similar to information foraging theory, the metaphor of knowledge territories assumes that people are selfish, lazy and want maximal output with minimal effort. But also that people are caring for their territory and offspring and that people are proud and have an enormous drive to survive.

Central in KTM are the concepts ‘territories’ and ‘traces’. When people work, they leave knowledge traces by doing things, writing things and saying things. People may either intentionally (‘smell flags’) or unintentionally (‘foot prints’) leave strong and clear (i.e. precise place) traces or weak and vague (i.e. place and is not completely clear like boundaries of territory) traces. People may intentionally or unintentionally leave as little traces as possible or try to remove their traces. Strong and clear traces inform other people about someone’s knowledge territory, weak and vague traces leave other people in the dark about one’s knowledge territory. In other words, people either hide their knowledge territory or show-off with their knowledge territory by the strength and clearness of the traces they leave.

I guess bloggers are very friendly knowledge animals – leaving lots of traces, keeping their knowledge territories open and even providing RSS feeds to make stealing knowledge much easier :)))

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2004/03/03.html#a1108; comments are here.

• Paper abstract: a weblog case to understand knowledge workers
• ‘Pouring the credit’ and why it’s still important
• Davenport on personal information and knowledge management

Thinking about something not new…

In a corporate KM context we think how to improve knowledge sharing. Once you realise that it’s not a technology problem most of discussion goes around “why people share/do not share knowledge?”, motivation and culture.

From another side if you start zooming in and study knowledge-sharing motivation of real people it’s easy to find out that many don’t mind to share, but don’t do it because nobody asks them or because they are not sure that others need to know. It seems that the problem is not with motivation to share, but with motivation to ask. So, I guess we have to turn the problem upside down: “why people do not ask for knowledge of others?“

This question may be more difficult: sharing your knowledge at least makes you an “expert” while asking others can “show” how “stupid” you are. Next to it there is “not invented here” syndrome and higher satisfaction of inventing your own solutions rather than reusing work of others.

My questions:

• Why people ask/do not ask questions (search for expertise of others)?
• What can be done to create an environment that motivates people to ask more questions?
• Will an environment where people ask questions improve knowledge sharing (and contribute to KM)?

Any ideas, comments, references are welcome.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/07/16.html#a673; comments are here.

• Reinventing is more fun than reusing (2)
• Reasons for not sharing knowledge
• Relational qualities that promote effective knowledge sharing

This is something that was on my “to blog” list for a long time:

Knowing what we know: Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks by Rob Cross, Andrew Parker, Laurence Prusak and Stephen P. Borgatti and earlier white paper with the same title.

These papers describe studies focused on analysing characteristics that promote effective knowledge sharing and then using those characteristics in social network analysis. Both papers are worth reading. The white paper provides a better overview of the study on characteristics of effective knowledge sharing. The journal article is more polished and packed with practical examples of SNA.

Relational characteristics that promote effective knowledge sharing (research method described in the white paper; the following citations are from the journal article, page 105):

• Knowing what another person knows

Knowing what someone else knows (even if we are initially inaccurate and calibrate over time) is a precursor to seeking a specific person out when we are faced with a problem or opportunity. For other people to be options we must have at least some perception of their expertise.

• Access

However, knowing that someone else knows is only useful if you can get access to their thinking in a sufficiently timely fashion. Access is heavily influenced by the closeness of one’s relationships as well as physical proximity, organisational design and collaborative technology.

• Engagement

People who are helpful in learning interactions actively thinking with the seekers and engage in problem solving. Rather than dump information, these people first understand the problem as experiences by the seeker and then shape their knowledge to the problem at hand.

• Safety

Finally, those relationships that are safe are often most effective for learning purposes. Being able to admit a lack of knowledge or to diverge in a conversation often results in creativity and learning.

Simple, powerful and research-based. Must-read for knowledge managers and interesting as a framework to think about weblogs as an environment for knowledge sharing.

[Sebastian, this is about knowledge sharing in a broader sense and includes learning side of it. I am curious to know if you can relate it to your research on weblogs and learning]

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/05/26.html#a628; comments are here.

• Weblog as knowledge networker instrument: questions
• Personal <i>something</i> management
• Learning: community vs. individual perspective

Sebastien Paquet:

By popular demand (OK, OK, for the two of you who asked for it), here’s an electronic version of my thesis (PDF, 4 Mb) which I defended in early May. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to compile the LaTeX source into a copy-pastable document (any tips on how to do that are welcome!).

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/05/19.html#a595; comments are here.

• Defining weblogs
• Boundary spanning
• Wiki as a data collection instrument

Jim McGee in Managing for shared awareness about Enterprise Effectiveness

Interesting thinking about what lessons are to be learned from the military about sharing information in real-time or near real-time:

Shared information inside a corporation and with its allies and customers provides greater information richness and reach, and produces shared awareness. Shared awareness in turn enables faster operational tempo and sustainable competitive advantage. This all spells increased competitiveness

An interesting transition from “need to know” to “shared awareness” Hierarchical organizations spend inordinate time and effort trying to work out precise boundaries on who needs to know what and when. Ostensibly about minimizing demands on people throughout the organization, it’s really about the exercise of power and control.

And Stephen Downes about Napsterize Your Knowledge: Give To Receive (here)

The primary lesson: “The more that a company shares its knowledge, the more valuable it becomes.” It’s astonishing how many people still don’t believe this. But when I look back at the success my website and OLDaily have brought me – despite my lack of any obvious qualifications in the field – it is self evidently true. When you share your knowledge, you share your ability, and this is what makes you or your company more valuable. People prefer to hire or contract for services based on proven ability nearly every time. Moreoever, the more you share, the more people share in return (many of the items in OLDaily are the result of submissions from readers), which increases your personal or corporate knowledge base. Anyhow, this article discusses some of the benefits of sharing knowledge and then offers some advice on how to do it.

I wonder if someone does research with large companies about cross-border knolwedge sharing? I believe in its power, but it would be nice to have more arguments to convince others.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/01/24.html#a427; comments are here.

• ‘Pouring the credit’ and why it’s still important
• I-KNOW: my paper is on-line
• Learning communities

George Siemens in Knowledge sharing Environment:

Some components needed in a well-crafted environment suitable for knowledge sharing:

• Informal, not structured
• Self-forming connections – let members of the environment decide how to interact
• Tool-rich – members should have many options for connecting and dialoguing.
• Simple/single starting point…but multiple branches/exits
• Diversity of participants – very critical…people tend to form into groups of similar people. Knowledge sharing and innovation require smashing together ideas of contradictory or unrelated nature
• Time – facilitation is best viewed as a small spark that grows into a roaring flame over time. Most managers seem to prefer explosions that die out quickly…
• Trust – knowledge sharing is about people. Safety and security (face to face or online) lead to trust. General community rules should value individual contributions and personalities.
• User-shaped – most KM initiatives begin with the mindset of building a house and then telling employees to move in an basically only hang up pictures. Instead, they should be given tools and supplies…and then allowed to create what they really need.
• Community feel – communities of practice have gained a reputation as being effective means of sharing knowledge…because we are most likely to share what we know with people we know.
• Capturing and searching – these staples of KM are still important. Newcomers should be able to observe the trials others have walked…and if done right, a KM system could link into persformance support systems…resulting in up to date resources for people…when they are needed.

Commenting Denham Grey suggests to “inquire what sharing knowledge really means” and points to wiki about knowledge sharing.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/01/21.html#a420; comments are here.

• Knowledge flows are powered by questions
• A Socio-Technological Approach to Sharing Knowledge Across Disciplines
• Technology is not important for knowledge sharing