I have said this before, and it appears I have to say it again, you have to consider the 'whole' and not the parts when thinking critically about some of the recent Google announcements.
What brings this on is the way Google Chrome OS got a real "kicking" in a podcast I was listening to on the train on the way to work this morning. "It's crap, it can't do anything without a network connection, its just the Chrome browser, thin computing was tried and failed before, yada yada yada......".
So Google will work with Netbook manufacturers to release "official' machines - so what ? There is the Chromium open source project. "its just Linux" again, so what ? In fact I am not even going to continue down that road.........
Think a little out of the box. My own personal interest is not in consumer computing. I don't care about Chrome OS versus Android on my phone or my netbook, I think about the enterprise space. I think of the implications for information and knowledge management, for ECM and intranets, and I think that a "thin client" based on Chrome OS plus a really good intranet could be a pleasent working experience. However I am also not saying this will work for everyone, so don't flame me because you need full on Windows for printing to your full colour A0 plotter, or for scanning invoices, or your Mac for graphic design, but lets think about it.....
I have ranted about what Google should / could do in the enterprise space before, and I think with their "private cloud" deals with the U.S. Federal Government, so of that might come to fruition, but I recently found this excellent post, which specifically focuses on Google Wave - another product which receives some heavy criticism from those who confess they "don't get it":
Google Wave Killed the ECM Star... George Parapadakis postulates his theory that Wave good have a major impact on the ECM space, for the reasons why I will qoute him directly:
"Why? because the ECM industry, and Document Management before it, was invented as a workaround to compensate for NOT being able to do what Google Wave does...."
Make sure you read the comments as well as his post. JM Pascal builds on the theme with his posting: Wave and ECM, my feelings and opinions. Some may note that all the big ECM vendors ahve been keen to jump on the E2.0 band wagon, with new collaboration tools and web based front ends to their industrial strength back end behemoths, tools such as EMC CentreStage, Oracle Beehive and maybe even SharePoint. So merging collaborative authoring into the wider collaboration tools seems to make sense to me.
However don't forget Wave is also a protocol, an extension / add on to XMPP, and we already have one old "groupware" vendor diving in with both feet, in the shape of Novell and their Pulse product. I am Pulse is just the first of many server products built on the Wave protocol / Wave Server foundation.
This brings another interesting angle to the ECM element - for many years there as has been a monolithic suite (examplified by EMC) approach to ECM software, versus a "build your own from best of breed" approach. So the integration possiblities provided by Wave, alongside initiaves such as CMIS could literally provide options and solutions that I personally am not imaginative enough to dream up right now ! Add open source into the equation, in the form of Alfresco, Nuxeo, MindTouch etc and we literally have a world of possibilities..... :-)
So back to Google Chrome OS. It's an enabler for some simple, low cost, low maintenance - yep almost 'thin computing' - use of either full on public cloud, so called "private cloud" or even just "inside the firewall" LAN based web technologies.
As I have said before, internal Wave, Docs, even the relativley crappy Sites, a GSA etc could enable a decent intranet. Push this to the next level with the latest web based GUI's for ERP and CRM systems, utilization of light weight AJAX toolkits to web enable your inhouse line of business apps, and yes all of a sudden alot of your staff, even sophisticated 'knowledge workers' can exist purely in their browser !
Even in a Microsoft environment, do I need Windows 7 and a full copy of MS Office when SharePoint 2010 is my ECMS, and it provides links to the "online" version of Office 2010 ? Nope Chrome OS would work just fine in that scenario.
Once again we are back to my old hobby horse of taking a truly holistic view of our intranet ecosystems and our information and knowledge management requirements.
Now, if we can just get some of the prominent detractors to think a little before dissing everything that they are not comfortable with, before exploring the possibilities
Showing posts with label Knowledge Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Knowledge Management. Show all posts
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Friday, 11 September 2009
Information Management related definitions - UPDATED
UPDATE - please scroll all the way to the bottom to ensure that you read the comments left by James Dellow and Joe Gollner, they both add considerably to the conversation.
Back at the JBoye09 conference in Philadelphia in May, Eric Hartman introduced me to the creation of TIMAF - The Information Management Framework, and asked me if I wanted to write an article for their publication, something which due to the new job, I have still not got round to doing !
However TIMAF founding contributors Eric and Bob Boiko presented their Basic Principles Of Information Management at the conference, and Eric started a discussion on the TIMAF LinkedIn group.
The basic principles were posted as:
#1 IM is Communication
IM is there to help people ‘talk’ to each other.
#2 Information Exchanges Value
IM ensurses the exchange of value in information transactions
#3 Information has Audiences
Knowledge of your audience is essential for successful IM
#4 Information Flows
IM rationalizes the creation and life of your information
#5 Information has Structure
IM is based on Information Organization
Generally speaking, I don't have any issues with principles 2 to 5, but it would not be overly dramatic to say that I do not just disagree with principle #1, but I dislike it , with a passion! (as anyone reading my comments in the LinkedIn group will see).
Recently Joe Gollner of Stilo joined in the conversation, and basically lent his support to #1 and linked to some of his blog posting to support his position. This is a particularily excellent one:
The truth about content.
Possibly in a fit of pique, on the LinkedIn discussion I promised Joe a full 'rebuttal' of his position - yes, ever so slightly regretting that term of phrase now..... I am not sure if I am actually academically equipped to rebutt anything written by Joe, but I am going to use lack of time (and energy - noticed how I have not posted for a while?) as my excuse for not deconstructing Joe's article piece by piece. Please do click on the link above and read it in full, Joe has obviously got a lot of experience in 'content management' and publishing. Instead I just thought it would be easier to provide my reasoning why as to why I really don't like "Information is communication" - and provide some definitions and a working theory of my own, especially as we have recently had a very similar conversation in the office; "what is the difference between document management and content management?"
So, why is information and communication different ? I don't believe the act of communication is what turns data into information. I also do not agree with the sub-premise of the Principle #1 that "Information Management is there to help people 'talk' to each other". Let us consider some definitions in order to put my arguement in context:
Both Joe in his post, and some of the responding comments mention "Working Knowledge" by Tom Davenport and Laurence Prusak - I am a 'fan' of the rather practical definitions given in this book and they are the ones are generally refer to, and starting at the bottom of the DIKW pyramid, they suggest data is: "Data is a set of discrete, objective facts about events".
So a datapoint in a dataset of sales figures, i.e. that you sold $6 million worth of hockey kit in the first quarter, is an actual, substantive fact, but it is not information yet. Well sure it is you say, knowing that you sold that much in a certain period is in fact useful information.
Not really - its simply collected data. To turn the data into information it needs to be processed (by a computer or a human brain) in a contextual manner.
Is $6 million more than the same period last year, or less ? does it consist of more items, or less? Is the profit margin greater or less? Is it more than our competitors or less? By merging it with other data, by disagregating it, by collecting further data to back it up, by extrapolating it, or exploring the effects of the data in various models, we are contextually processing the data and adding value to it. Some data needs more processing and polishing than other data in order to expose its intrinsic value.
This is linked to IM basic principles #2 and #3 - the same information may have more value to some target audiences than others, and depending on that target audience and the intrinsic value of the information, any transactions involving that information, including communicating it to others may increase its overall value.
So - "Information Management is Communication" - no its not. IM covers a lot more than this simplistic statement conveys, it is transformation of data into information in the first place (or maybe that should be out of scope?), the categorization, structuring, storing and retrieving of information, which may or may not include communication. Contextuality can be preserved by providing metadata and linking to other contextual information (or data sources). As for "IM is there to help people 'talk' to each other" again this is too simplistic and vague. Does 'talking' involve decision making? In an organizational context, IM should be about informing decision makers, providing them with as much information as possible to make informed business, technical or investment decisions. In my experience we often get a lot of talking, but no 'action' (remember the old BT adverts - "it's good to talk" - well yes it is, as long as there is an actionable outcome !)
This leads us back to DIKW, Data -> Information -> Knowledge -> Wisdom. I believe good information management is an absolute necessity for a knowledge management enabled organization.
A part of IM is often 'content management' and as I noted earlier, we have internally been discussing the definitions of content, and I include this in this post, because again I appear to differ in my opinions from Joe (although at the end of the day, is it just semantics ?)
Joe suggests in 'The truth about content' post that content is a nebulous concept, one that surrounds data, information and knowledge. However now its my turn to offer a more simplistic approach. I consider content to be "unstructured information" as opposed to "structured information".
Structured information is that which can be built up from data in a structured manner, synonymous to the rows and columns of a database, for example that which is kept in RDBMS based applications such as a CRM. It is information and not simply a collection of data because it can include many data points from different data sets, metadata and other contextuallising elements brought together and processed to "paint a picture" of me as a customer.
Unstructured information is that contained within words, pictures, sounds, various possible computer file formats, but information which does not sit well in a construct of rows and columns. This might be stored in in Email archive (Outlook .PST hell anyone?), a shared area on a LAN, or in a 'content management' system. Within the category of 'content' we can have sub-categories such as:
For the sake of our discussion at work, I tried to capture this into a single (and thus not all encompassing) diagram:
Click on the diagram for a bigger more readable rendition.
Of course nothing ever stands still and all definitions can change, grow, be edited to fit the context etc. Technology also runs ahead at a good pace, and thus blurs the lines. Surely if your text is in an XML 'document' then it is in fact 'structured' information (as in Structured Authoring) even though it is stored in a file system by the CMS (which in turn is storing all the Metadata in a database.......). So while I may not agree with Joe on his definition of content, it is a minor thing, but to my fellow members of the TIMAF group, I just can't reconcile myself to that basic principle :-(
Back at the JBoye09 conference in Philadelphia in May, Eric Hartman introduced me to the creation of TIMAF - The Information Management Framework, and asked me if I wanted to write an article for their publication, something which due to the new job, I have still not got round to doing !
However TIMAF founding contributors Eric and Bob Boiko presented their Basic Principles Of Information Management at the conference, and Eric started a discussion on the TIMAF LinkedIn group.
The basic principles were posted as:
#1 IM is Communication
IM is there to help people ‘talk’ to each other.
#2 Information Exchanges Value
IM ensurses the exchange of value in information transactions
#3 Information has Audiences
Knowledge of your audience is essential for successful IM
#4 Information Flows
IM rationalizes the creation and life of your information
#5 Information has Structure
IM is based on Information Organization
Generally speaking, I don't have any issues with principles 2 to 5, but it would not be overly dramatic to say that I do not just disagree with principle #1, but I dislike it , with a passion! (as anyone reading my comments in the LinkedIn group will see).
Recently Joe Gollner of Stilo joined in the conversation, and basically lent his support to #1 and linked to some of his blog posting to support his position. This is a particularily excellent one:
The truth about content.
Possibly in a fit of pique, on the LinkedIn discussion I promised Joe a full 'rebuttal' of his position - yes, ever so slightly regretting that term of phrase now..... I am not sure if I am actually academically equipped to rebutt anything written by Joe, but I am going to use lack of time (and energy - noticed how I have not posted for a while?) as my excuse for not deconstructing Joe's article piece by piece. Please do click on the link above and read it in full, Joe has obviously got a lot of experience in 'content management' and publishing. Instead I just thought it would be easier to provide my reasoning why as to why I really don't like "Information is communication" - and provide some definitions and a working theory of my own, especially as we have recently had a very similar conversation in the office; "what is the difference between document management and content management?"
So, why is information and communication different ? I don't believe the act of communication is what turns data into information. I also do not agree with the sub-premise of the Principle #1 that "Information Management is there to help people 'talk' to each other". Let us consider some definitions in order to put my arguement in context:
Both Joe in his post, and some of the responding comments mention "Working Knowledge" by Tom Davenport and Laurence Prusak - I am a 'fan' of the rather practical definitions given in this book and they are the ones are generally refer to, and starting at the bottom of the DIKW pyramid, they suggest data is: "Data is a set of discrete, objective facts about events".
So a datapoint in a dataset of sales figures, i.e. that you sold $6 million worth of hockey kit in the first quarter, is an actual, substantive fact, but it is not information yet. Well sure it is you say, knowing that you sold that much in a certain period is in fact useful information.
Not really - its simply collected data. To turn the data into information it needs to be processed (by a computer or a human brain) in a contextual manner.
Is $6 million more than the same period last year, or less ? does it consist of more items, or less? Is the profit margin greater or less? Is it more than our competitors or less? By merging it with other data, by disagregating it, by collecting further data to back it up, by extrapolating it, or exploring the effects of the data in various models, we are contextually processing the data and adding value to it. Some data needs more processing and polishing than other data in order to expose its intrinsic value.
This is linked to IM basic principles #2 and #3 - the same information may have more value to some target audiences than others, and depending on that target audience and the intrinsic value of the information, any transactions involving that information, including communicating it to others may increase its overall value.
So - "Information Management is Communication" - no its not. IM covers a lot more than this simplistic statement conveys, it is transformation of data into information in the first place (or maybe that should be out of scope?), the categorization, structuring, storing and retrieving of information, which may or may not include communication. Contextuality can be preserved by providing metadata and linking to other contextual information (or data sources). As for "IM is there to help people 'talk' to each other" again this is too simplistic and vague. Does 'talking' involve decision making? In an organizational context, IM should be about informing decision makers, providing them with as much information as possible to make informed business, technical or investment decisions. In my experience we often get a lot of talking, but no 'action' (remember the old BT adverts - "it's good to talk" - well yes it is, as long as there is an actionable outcome !)
This leads us back to DIKW, Data -> Information -> Knowledge -> Wisdom. I believe good information management is an absolute necessity for a knowledge management enabled organization.
A part of IM is often 'content management' and as I noted earlier, we have internally been discussing the definitions of content, and I include this in this post, because again I appear to differ in my opinions from Joe (although at the end of the day, is it just semantics ?)
Joe suggests in 'The truth about content' post that content is a nebulous concept, one that surrounds data, information and knowledge. However now its my turn to offer a more simplistic approach. I consider content to be "unstructured information" as opposed to "structured information".
Structured information is that which can be built up from data in a structured manner, synonymous to the rows and columns of a database, for example that which is kept in RDBMS based applications such as a CRM. It is information and not simply a collection of data because it can include many data points from different data sets, metadata and other contextuallising elements brought together and processed to "paint a picture" of me as a customer.
Unstructured information is that contained within words, pictures, sounds, various possible computer file formats, but information which does not sit well in a construct of rows and columns. This might be stored in in Email archive (Outlook .PST hell anyone?), a shared area on a LAN, or in a 'content management' system. Within the category of 'content' we can have sub-categories such as:
- Documents (text in SGML, .txt, X/HTML, PDF, MS Office, XML and various other formats)
- Digital Assets ('rich media', images, videos, audio files etc)
- Records (any content which is evidence of a business transaction)
- Web content (any of the above to be 'published' to the web....)
For the sake of our discussion at work, I tried to capture this into a single (and thus not all encompassing) diagram:
Click on the diagram for a bigger more readable rendition.Of course nothing ever stands still and all definitions can change, grow, be edited to fit the context etc. Technology also runs ahead at a good pace, and thus blurs the lines. Surely if your text is in an XML 'document' then it is in fact 'structured' information (as in Structured Authoring) even though it is stored in a file system by the CMS (which in turn is storing all the Metadata in a database.......). So while I may not agree with Joe on his definition of content, it is a minor thing, but to my fellow members of the TIMAF group, I just can't reconcile myself to that basic principle :-(
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Where ECM fits in the bigger information management picture
Anyway, Knowledge Management being a bit of a fuzzy term, it can depend on your personal business context to put it into perspective, but this diagram is meant as a summary of sorts, showing what I consider to be 4 main contributing factors, with just a few of the main factors added around the periphery (click on the graphic for a larger version and feel to share under the Creative Commons, the image is tagged):
So where does ECM fit into this picture. Well its in the conjunction of Information Management and Information & Communications Technologies, exactly where the arrow labelled "efficiency benefits" is pointing !
I look at this way, those that believe in Knowledge Management as a concept generally agree that it is enable by good information management. In its turn content management is about the stewardship of unstructured information, in other words that which does not easily fit into the rows and columns of a relational database. In other words, an ECM strategy can be a vital part of a broader KM strategy.
I look at this way, those that believe in Knowledge Management as a concept generally agree that it is enable by good information management. In its turn content management is about the stewardship of unstructured information, in other words that which does not easily fit into the rows and columns of a relational database. In other words, an ECM strategy can be a vital part of a broader KM strategy.
So should you be rushing out and investing lots of money in shiny new ECM software during the downturn? Well maybe, or you could focus on the management of your information assets, your intellectual property, which is often one of your most valuable sources of competitive advantage. You can do much to improve information management without investing in new platforms, by investing in staff development and education (note thats generic IM education - not 'training' for a specific piece of software!). However if you do have good enough cashflow to be able to invest in software, now would be a good to time to negotiate a good deal from vendors who also need to safeguard thier own cashflow. Of course developing a good business case and ROI arguements for better provisioning the management of your vitally important information is going to be even more important, but whether your ECM requirements are focused on up-front scanning, document and records management, or digital asset and web content (or all of them!) ECM technologies can also help you make the most of your storage environment and your investments in 'tin' via single instane storage, automated retention and disposal and even heirarchical storage management.
So whether your goals are improved efficiency overall, revving up a sagging ECM strategy, or 'knowledge enabling' your organisation, now is as good a time as any to consider your strategies and Prescient Digital Media can assist you in your strategising!
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
the great KM debate surfaces again !
I wish I had been able to keep pace with the blogging recently, I could have contributed to the latest conversation on Knowledge Management, yep, its back again........ I have to add my two penneth worth, even it if its late.
So, apparently Chuck Hollis of EMC kicked it off this time, with a provocatively titled posting; "The end of Knowledge Management". Chuck seems to equate 'classical' KM as being almost the same as document management, at least thats how I read this statement: "I think what we're seeing a fundamental redefinition of knowledge management -- away from formalized documents living in a repository -- and towards active social networks of knowledgeable people who share, communicate and collaborate -- which we then capture and preserve for future use."
Now I did the Managing Knowledge module of my MBA course, as did a close colleague at the Open University, and we once had a rousing debate in an eRoom on the subject of Nonaka and Takeuchi's case for capturing knowledge via the SECI process (my argument) versus what Browne has to say about the way individuals indulge in sense making. Obviously other colleagues just gawped at the two pseudo academics in amazement, and probably did not understand a thing we were on about, but we enjoyed the debate. However I have since had an epiphany and now follow Dave Snowden's theories on KM, and he really, really is not a fan of SECI ! Dave's recent article on KM World is referenced by Lee Dallas on BMOC when he chips in.
Lee seems to agree with Dave, David Gurteen, Pie and others, that '2.0' technologies are assisting in capturing information, but that more importantly a generation of users that have grown up with user generated content, and 'web 2.0' tools 'get it' when it comes to processes that can deliver 'knowledge management' (in lower case), to quote: "The content being created in wikis and blogs is given context and relevance directly by those that know what it is for, what it says and how to apply it. The information is becoming knowledge."
I agree with this statement, because I agree with Dave Snowden that human brains turn information into knowledge. Information, plus context (contextual meta-information ?) is processed inline with the individuals past experience to create knowledge. Its becoming knowledge in the readers head, not on the pages of a blog or a wiki. Pie's input includes the post; "Knowledge Management is marching along" where he, as usual, does a good job of pulling various threads together, on how E 2.0 tech, plus ECM, SOA and various other technologies can be enablers for 'KM 2.0'. Bex makes an interesting comment, stating he would just like to drop the discredited 'KM' term, and just stick with 'Enterprise 2.0' as the new wave. Following on this 'semantics' theme, David Gurteen has a recent post pointing to an article on IBM changing to using the term Knowledge Sharing instead of Knowldge Management. I know its bad blogging practice not to link to this, but David weblog has just stopped my Firefox dead in its tracks 3 times, and I am not starting this blog post again....!
So, what can we take from all of this ?
Previous, but related posts:
Its Official, Enterprise 2.0 = Knowledge Management
Online Information 2007 - Updated
Also may I suggest you search Slideshare.net for Dave Snowden and David Gurteen, they both put their stuff up on there.
So, apparently Chuck Hollis of EMC kicked it off this time, with a provocatively titled posting; "The end of Knowledge Management". Chuck seems to equate 'classical' KM as being almost the same as document management, at least thats how I read this statement: "I think what we're seeing a fundamental redefinition of knowledge management -- away from formalized documents living in a repository -- and towards active social networks of knowledgeable people who share, communicate and collaborate -- which we then capture and preserve for future use."
Now I did the Managing Knowledge module of my MBA course, as did a close colleague at the Open University, and we once had a rousing debate in an eRoom on the subject of Nonaka and Takeuchi's case for capturing knowledge via the SECI process (my argument) versus what Browne has to say about the way individuals indulge in sense making. Obviously other colleagues just gawped at the two pseudo academics in amazement, and probably did not understand a thing we were on about, but we enjoyed the debate. However I have since had an epiphany and now follow Dave Snowden's theories on KM, and he really, really is not a fan of SECI ! Dave's recent article on KM World is referenced by Lee Dallas on BMOC when he chips in.
Lee seems to agree with Dave, David Gurteen, Pie and others, that '2.0' technologies are assisting in capturing information, but that more importantly a generation of users that have grown up with user generated content, and 'web 2.0' tools 'get it' when it comes to processes that can deliver 'knowledge management' (in lower case), to quote: "The content being created in wikis and blogs is given context and relevance directly by those that know what it is for, what it says and how to apply it. The information is becoming knowledge."
I agree with this statement, because I agree with Dave Snowden that human brains turn information into knowledge. Information, plus context (contextual meta-information ?) is processed inline with the individuals past experience to create knowledge. Its becoming knowledge in the readers head, not on the pages of a blog or a wiki. Pie's input includes the post; "Knowledge Management is marching along" where he, as usual, does a good job of pulling various threads together, on how E 2.0 tech, plus ECM, SOA and various other technologies can be enablers for 'KM 2.0'. Bex makes an interesting comment, stating he would just like to drop the discredited 'KM' term, and just stick with 'Enterprise 2.0' as the new wave. Following on this 'semantics' theme, David Gurteen has a recent post pointing to an article on IBM changing to using the term Knowledge Sharing instead of Knowldge Management. I know its bad blogging practice not to link to this, but David weblog has just stopped my Firefox dead in its tracks 3 times, and I am not starting this blog post again....!
So, what can we take from all of this ?
- KM is not dead - it was never alive in the first place ! (so was it a Zombie ?)
- KM Systems were just another type of content management system, for managing data and information
- Enterprise 2.0 technologies allow us to build better systems for managing information, better than KM 1.0 systems that is.
- Culture is changing, people are getting more used to information management in general (i.e. they may not know what metadata is, but they 'tag' their music in iTunes) and participating via easy to use interfaces (thus getting them to blog, use wiki's etc might be easier than getting them to place 'their' information in the 'corporate KM' system)
- If you want to indulge in knowledge management (with a small k and a small m) or intellectual capital management, or intellectual property management or any other label you want to give to this endeavor, you need good Information Management systems to underpin your efforts.
- Point 5 means the latest ECM, Enterprise Search, and Enterprise 2.0 technologies may help you in achieving your goals - but as ever, the shiny new software is no panacea.
Previous, but related posts:
Its Official, Enterprise 2.0 = Knowledge Management
Online Information 2007 - Updated
Also may I suggest you search Slideshare.net for Dave Snowden and David Gurteen, they both put their stuff up on there.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Its official Enterprise 2.0 = Knowledge Management
Well, maybe not 'official', but this posting from Jon Husband from the FastForward08 conference (I wish I was attending that one !) mentions many many big names from the knowledge management arena and the fact that they are all starting to agree on this one thing in particular, that so called 'enterprise 2.0' tools such as blogs, wiki's, social bookmarking etc can indeed help to capture and surface an organisations knowledge. Follow the link and read the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)