KM & Web 2.0

How’s that for a geeky title?

Anyway, I took the time yesterday morning to listen to Jon Husband’s podcast interview with Dave Snowden. Let me say that this is worth your time if you’re interested in how knowledge management (KM) can be accomplished in our current technological surround. I intend on listening to this podcast again (thanks, Jon).

I took a few notes but there’s a lot more than this in the interview. Here’s what struck me [my comments in brackets]:

  • The most important word in Web 2.0 or Enterprise 2.0 is “Context” [same for learning, IMO]
  • There should not be any rewards/incentives/money for knowledge work. It should be intrinsic and based on trust. External rewards will only have people gaming the system. [Sounds like every organisation I ever worked in]
  • You cannot create a knowledge-sharing culture, but you can make it easier for people to connect.
  • Knowledge work is not subject to corporate objectives, it is by its nature, “informal” [so informal learning supports knowledge work?]
  • It doesn’t matter what tools you use, because all web 2.0 tools should inter-operate; so why do companies spend time trying to figure out what wiki/blog software to use?
  • Most effective knowledge exists in flows and is contextually created in times of need [makes it difficult to tap and impossible to stick into a database].
  • The major Web 2.0 KM issue is the recall of knowledge in blogs over time (keywords, tags, search, narrative).
  • Dave: “Since I’ve left IBM I’ve had fewer virus attacks working in an open Web environment than I did in a secure corporate environment.”

Update: Jack Vinson and Ray Sims have more commentary on this interview.

4 Responses to “KM & Web 2.0”

  1. Robert

    We deploy multiple web 2.0-Science 2.0 tools on our Intranet and I am not quite sure how they “should inter-operate.” These are separate application platforms. PBWiki does not interoperate with Jumper Networks, WordPress does not interpoperate with SocialText. Nor should they. Different tools that meet different needs.

    Reply
  2. Jon Husband

    Nor should they

    Hmmm .. I wonder.

    I think that the challenge, and an emerging capability (open API’s, plug-ins and widgets, etc.) is that various applications / platforms can be accessible from each other when (and only when) needed and / or wanted, such that they can function independently while at the same time enabling the possibility of using what is needed from both if necessary.

    A “Both / And” kind of thing …

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)