| |
 |
Wednesday, July 17, 2002 |
Connecting technology systems and systems-thinking
Self-herding Cats.
From Michael Helfrich's weblog: Technology Confined Collaboration?
Collaboration is about people. Collaboration needs technology frameworks that support adaptive, ad hoc interactions. Adaptive from the sense of extending functionality on the fly and securely embracing new members on the fly. Simply put, it's the swarming culture fused with adaptive technology.
[High Context]
Also from the article:
The IT lady summed it up best when she said, "web collaboration doesn't work the way people do." Technology was confining the natural human collaborative process. This particular product was forcing these folks (all 26, 000 of them) into working with a fixed set of tools, which was the real problem. If your problem didn't fit almost exactly into the function set the tool provided, you were forced to change the way YOU work. Compound this by being forced to work within the firewall and the need to have IT set up a space and the point is made.
This from the folks at Groove. We're starting to see a richer view of how technology, organizational culture, and work practices interact. David Gurteen has some relevant observations on this, as have Matt Mower, and Terry Frazier.
Slowly, we're beginning to learn how to put together the insights of software and technology developers with the insights of systems level thinkers. One starting point on systems thinking is a great paper by the late Donella Meadows, Places to Intervene in a System (pdf file).
10:05:55 PM Google It! 
|
|
Email Email Everywhere.
E-Mail Storage Issues Facing North American Companies
"Osterman Research finds that 51% of North American companies using Microsoft Exchange message systems have e-mail retention policies in place and 84% say they enforce mailbox size quotas....
According to a recently-released whitepaper from Osterman Research, 31% of North American companies say the average size of an e-mail mailbox in their message system is between 26 and 50 megabytes (Mb). Additionally, 46% of these companies say that e-mail users in their system send up to 50 messages per day....
Message system administrators and users alike should easily relate to Osterman's findings regarding the extent to which users complain about mailbox size quotas. Osterman asked administrators to rate, on a scale of one to five in which five indicates "complain a great deal," the level of complaints in their company. Most respondents (30%) rated the level of complaining with a three, but 22% rated the level of complaining with a four and 14% said users complain a great deal." [eMarketer]
I'm getting to a point where I won't be able to take my email with me if I ever leave SLS - it's too freaking big!
There has to be a way for k-logging to help with this for at least a percentage of these people. Luckily, we don't have quotas in place at SLS or else my external email would be a real problem. Here I am with my own blog, I'm trying to move into k-logging, and I really haven't integrated email into that equation yet. How on earth am I going to get my staff to do this?
Are there any guidelines out there yet for how to integrate various information sources (web, email, chat, etc.) into a k-log, or is the format still too young? [The Shifted Librarian]
11:55:09 AM
|
|
Tog on call centers. Bruce Tognazzini (aka "Tog") has written an excellent piece about How Call Centers can Make or Break Companies. This talks [Column Two]
11:52:49 AM
|
|
The politics of k-logging.
The Synchronicity of Klogging Culture. This is a good post for those new to k-logs and klogging, and is the first of two items regarding the interaction of klogging with employers/co-workers -- should we/shouldn't we, when/when not, what to say/what not to say, etc. [Blunt Force Trauma]
» There's some mighty good stuff in here and definitely food for thought for me.
Paul's brief analysis of his reluctance to let people in on the secret of his k-log seems to me very important. He makes the point that:
"I don't know how people might react to the things I've written. A klog is by definition not politically correct; you say what you think, not what you believe others might want to hear."
[Paul Holbrook's Radio weblog]
This is a very real and sensible fear. Many organizations are highly politicised and you score no points for honesty, energy or dedication. Only for keeping your head down.
From my perspective, what this says is that there are a whole lot of organizations for whom k-logging is not going to be appropriate, and, when the banks break and k-logging becomes big, are going to suffer real pain when they try to force people to k-log.
Only companies that give their people the slack to k-log honestly and without fear are going to benefit from this technology.
Anyone got a directory of those companies?
[Curiouser and curiouser!]
11:37:34 AM
|
|
Is KM a technology problem?. What if knowledge management actually is a technology problem?. I just came across a posting by Jim McGee in McGee's Musings that I found thought provoking. Here is how it starts :
What if knowledge management actually is a technology problem?
Current thinking holds that knowledge management's problems come from too much focus on technology when the key problems are about organizational processes and practices. I've said as much myself on many occasions. But this formulation risks perpetuating the myth that problems are either organizational or technological. We know the real world isn't that simple, of course. We shouldn't contribute to the confusion by oversimplifying our discussion. Like Jim, I have always thought that KM is about people - "psychology - not technology" but I always love it when so called 'truths' that we hold dear are questioned - including my own. We've only got to look back through history to see the many times when we thought we were right and had all the answers - only to see those views totally overturned a few years later.
So what if KM is really all about technology and not people? I don't think so! Like Jim, I agree the real world is not that simple. We tend to like either-or arguments - [right-or-wrong] solutions - but reality is not like that - the answer is usually fuzzy and some where in between the extremes. So should KM be more about technology than people? Maybe its just that our current technology is poor or we are not using it appropriately. What role will technology play in the future?
Take a look at what Jim has to say - some interesting thoughts ... What do you think? [Gurteen Knowledge-Log]
» I guess that my view is that where traditional KM fails it is not especially because the technology wasn't sophisticated enough (and sometimes the reverse) but because it failed to address the social, emotional needs of the individuals it was supposed to be serving.
I think this is part of the reason why I suspect klogging will be such a huge success - it's a social thing. People can create social capital by klogging. They can network, foster communities, add evident value. It creates new opportunities for them. It's a win-win deal.
Is klogging a technological victory? Only in the sense of the technology getting the hell outta the way.
[Curiouser and curiouser!]
11:36:11 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2002 Jim McGee.
|
|
