A little while back I commented on what aimed to be a provocative blog post at Harvard Business Review from Anthony J. Bradley and Mark P. Mcdonald both from Gardner. The post titled Social Media vs. Knowledge Management received a really long list of comments on it (one from myself). But rather than commenting one more time, I would like to put down some more general perspectives into a blog entry.
On a very general point I have to disagree with the authors - the definition of the terms to start with. I have a different idea of what KM is and the confusion of that has lead me using the term "Knowledge Flow Management" instead, as a knowledge flow for me is the much better analogy than thinking of managing knowledge (which is in people's head).
The value that people have in mind is similar in both, KM and KFM, but the approaches are often the wrong ones when you think of it as a primary technical discipline and that is what happens when people think they can really "store" knowledge in a database or even a document. The authors are in agreement looking at their conclusions, but many are not yet.
With the two definitions they presented I have a more substantial issue:
The way those are expressed is off:
I do agree with the authors on the barriers they are talking about and I do agree that engagement is key and mass collaboration is taking over in a lot of places and also replacing some of the old "document-centric" views.
And I am in full support of the point that it is about so much more than tools and technology. Definitely.
Yes KM and Social Media are not the same, but I would clame it is not even the right comparision. Those terms are from different levels. To compare them like this is as if I would compare Motivation to a hammer. You might be able to relate motivation and engagement and a hammer and a screwdriver, but mixing the categories doesn't make a lot of sense.
Good conclusions at the end but an odd way to start that discussion from my point of view. What do You think?
On a very general point I have to disagree with the authors - the definition of the terms to start with. I have a different idea of what KM is and the confusion of that has lead me using the term "Knowledge Flow Management" instead, as a knowledge flow for me is the much better analogy than thinking of managing knowledge (which is in people's head).
The value that people have in mind is similar in both, KM and KFM, but the approaches are often the wrong ones when you think of it as a primary technical discipline and that is what happens when people think they can really "store" knowledge in a database or even a document. The authors are in agreement looking at their conclusions, but many are not yet.
With the two definitions they presented I have a more substantial issue:
- Knowledge management is what company management tells me I need to know, based on what they think is important.
- Social media is how my peers show me what they think is important, based on their experience and in a way that I can judge for myself.
The way those are expressed is off:
- KM is what company management tells me... - It is a process, KM itself is not even content.
- Social Media is how my peers show... - Social Media is a tool set, it is not a process in itself.
I do agree with the authors on the barriers they are talking about and I do agree that engagement is key and mass collaboration is taking over in a lot of places and also replacing some of the old "document-centric" views.
And I am in full support of the point that it is about so much more than tools and technology. Definitely.
Yes KM and Social Media are not the same, but I would clame it is not even the right comparision. Those terms are from different levels. To compare them like this is as if I would compare Motivation to a hammer. You might be able to relate motivation and engagement and a hammer and a screwdriver, but mixing the categories doesn't make a lot of sense.
Good conclusions at the end but an odd way to start that discussion from my point of view. What do You think?
